Indian Gaming Regulatory Act
The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA), enacted in 1988, establishes a framework for regulating gaming on American Indian lands, reflecting a blend of legislative efforts from the mid-1980s. The Act classifies gaming into three categories: Class I, which includes traditional tribal games; Class II, covering games like bingo; and Class III, which encompasses most other forms of gambling, such as slot machines and card games. Class III gaming requires a tribal-state compact, an agreement between the tribe and the state that outlines the terms of gaming operations.
The IGRA created the National Indian Gaming Commission, responsible for overseeing compliance and ensuring that gaming activities are managed in accordance with the law. A significant aspect of the IGRA is its recognition of tribal sovereignty, although it requires negotiations with states, which has led to some controversy over state rights and tribal autonomy. Many tribes have benefited economically from gaming operations, using revenues to fund essential services and development projects. However, the compacting process can sometimes create tensions between state governments and tribal authorities as they navigate their respective interests in the gaming landscape. Overall, the IGRA plays a crucial role in the intersection of tribal governance, economic development, and state-federal relations regarding gaming.
On this Page
Indian Gaming Regulatory Act
Significance: The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act regulates gaming on Indian lands by dividing it into three classes and authorizing compacts between tribes and states.
The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA), signed into law on October 17, 1988, by President George H. W. Bush, represents an amalgamation of ideas presented in various bills introduced in Congress from 1983 through 1987 and provides a system to permit and regulate gaming on American Indian lands.
The IGRA divides gaming into three classes. Class I gaming includes social games of minimal value, as well as traditional games played as a part of tribal ceremonies or celebrations. Class I gaming is exclusively regulated by the tribes. Class II gaming includes bingo, and if played within the same location, pull tabs, lotto, tip jars, instant bingo, games similar to bingo, and certain card games. A tribe may engage in Class II games if the state in which the tribe is located permits such gaming for any purpose by any person, organization, or entity. Class III gaming includes all forms of gaming other than Class I or II, for example, banking card games like blackjack, baccarat and chemin de fer, slot machines, craps, pari-mutuel horse racing, and dog racing. Class III gaming is prohibited unless authorized by a tribal-state compact.
In addition to classifying games, the IGRA established a three-member National Indian Gaming Commission within the Department of the Interior. The commission chairman is appointed by the president of the United States with Senate approval; the other two members are appointed by the secretary of the interior. At least two members must be enrolled members of an American Indian tribe. The commission has the power to approve all tribal gaming ordinances and resolutions, shut down gaming activities, levy and collect fines, and approve gaming management contracts for Class II and Class III gaming. The commission has broad power to monitor Class II gaming by inspecting gaming permits, conducting background investigations of personnel, and inspecting and auditing books and records. Regulation and jurisdiction of Class III gaming are more complicated. Class III gaming is lawful when it is authorized by a tribal ordinance, approved by the chairman of the commission, located in a state that permits such gaming (whether for charitable, commercial, or government purposes), and conducted in compliance with a tribal-state compact that is approved by the secretary of the interior.
A tribe seeking to conduct Class III gaming must request that the state in which its lands are located negotiate a tribal-state compact governing the conduct of gaming activities. The compact may include provisions concerning the application of tribal or state criminal and civil laws directly related to gaming, the allocation of jurisdiction between the state and tribe, state assessments to defray the costs of regulation, standards for operation and maintenance of the gaming facility, and other subjects related to the gaming activity. The state is not authorized to impose a tax or assessment upon a tribe unless the tribe agrees. The state cannot refuse to negotiate a compact based on its inability to impose a tax, fee, or other assessment.
The question of gaming on American Indian reservations is one that involves both sovereignty and economic issues for tribes and states alike. The IGRA grants United States district courts jurisdiction over actions by tribes. Reasons for such action include failure of a state to negotiate with a tribe seeking to enter a compact; failure of the state to negotiate in good faith; or any violation of the tribal-state compact. The IGRA provides that a federal district court may order a tribe and state to reach a compact if the state fails to meet its burden of proving that it negotiated in good faith. If no compact is forthcoming, a court may appoint a mediator to recommend a compact. In March, 1996, the United States Supreme Court ruled in Seminole Tribe of Indians v. Florida that Congress cannot force states into federal court to settle disputes over gambling on reservations. Federal law, through the IGRA, still permits tribes to seek help from the secretary of the interior when state officials balk at tribal plans for gaming operations.
The IGRA requires that all gaming facilities be tribally owned and that revenue from gaming operations be directed for specific tribal programs, such as education, elderly programs, or housing. Restriction of gaming to tribal governments ensures that American Indian gaming remains a government function rather than a personal endeavor.
Controversy
The most controversial aspect of the IGRA involves the tribal-state compact required for Class III gaming. Tribal sovereignty is diminished by the IGRA, because it forces states and tribes into an agreement. Most laws recognize that tribes have a government-to-government relationship with the federal government and are not under state jurisdiction unless there is prior agreement (as Public Law 280 states). Nevertheless, the IGRA specifically requires negotiations between tribes and states.
States have objected to tribal-state compacting on the grounds that it violates their sovereignty under the Eleventh Amendment of the Constitution, which protects states from being sued in federal court against their will. In a 1996 Supreme Court decision, it was ruled that Congress cannot attempt to resolve stalled negotiations between states and tribes over on-reservation gambling by making states and their officials targets of federal lawsuits. The Eleventh Amendment rights of states were upheld.
The IGRA has been embraced by many tribes in the United States as a way to bolster reservation economies. Some of the most poverty-stricken areas in the United States are American Indian reservations, and gaming revenues give tribes income to reinvest in other business ventures. However, the compacting process can result in conflict of interest for some states that rely heavily on gaming revenues. In addition, the issue of untaxed revenues resulting from American Indian gaming operations is a factor in establishing compacts, and states in need of such revenue cannot act dispassionately with tribes when they negotiate those compacts. Gaming on American Indian reservations is fraught with issues of competing interests for both tribes and states.
Bibliography
Canby, William C. American Indian Law in a Nutshell. Minneapolis: West, 1981. Print.
MacFarlan, Allan A. Book of American Indian Games. New York: AP, 1958. Print.
Santoni, Roland J. “The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act: How Did We Get Here? Where Are We Going?” Creighton Law Review 26 (1993). Print.
Spilde, Katherine, and Jonathan B. Taylor. “Economic Evidence on the Effects of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act on Indians and Non-Indians.” UNLV Gaming Research & Review Journal 17.1 (2013): 13–30. SPORTDiscus with Full Text. Web. 30 Apr. 2015.
Wilkinson, Charles F. American Indians, Time, and the Law: Native Societies in a Modern Constitutional Democracy. New Haven: Yale UP, 1987. Print.