Tribal-state compact

Last updated

Tribal-state compacts are agreements between two sovereigns to agree on legal principles. Tribal-state compacts may be implemented in health care, child welfare, or other government functions. Tribal-state compacts are declared necessary for any Class III gaming on Indian reservations under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988 (IGRA). They were designed to allow tribal and state governments to come to a "business" agreement. A compact can be thought of as "negotiated agreement between two political entities that resolves questions of overlapping jurisdictional responsibilities [1] Compacts affect the delicate power balance between states, federal, and tribal governments. It is these forms that have been a major source of controversy surrounding Indian gaming. Thus, it is understandable that the IGRA provides very detailed instructions for how states and tribes can make compacts cooperatively and also details the instructions for how the federal government can regulate such agreements. [2]

Contents

The IGRA of 1988 and tribal-state Compacts

Section 3A of the Act includes specific instructions for the process of developing a tribal-state compact. Native American tribes are expected to request a compact with states if they should desire to have Class III gaming. (States have no jurisdiction over Class I and II gambling.) Following such a request, states are required to enter negotiations and deal with the tribes in "good faith". The original text of the act implied that if states tried to "stone-wall" tribal gambling, the tribes could look to the federal courts for support. [3] But while the IGRA gives states unprecedented influence on tribal economic concerns, it also seeks to maintain the federal government as the "guardian" of the tribes. Accordingly, section 3B maintains the power of the federal government in this aspect. No compact will be valid until the United States Secretary of the Interior has entered the compact into the Federal registry. Also, tribes who feel that a state is not negotiating in "good faith" have the right to sue the states in federal court.

The topics that compacts may cover include provisions relating to criminal/civil laws of the tribe or state in relation to the gambling activity, the allocation of court jurisdiction between the State and Indian tribe necessary to enforce these laws, money the State should receive to defray the costs of regulating the gambling, and any other such subjects directly related to the operation of gaming activities. It also specifies that Indian tribe shall have the right to regulate gaming concurrently with the state, unless some aspect of the compact is broken.

The IGRA takes specific notice of the fact that the text is not "conferring upon a State or any of its political subdivisions the authority to impose any taxes, fee, charge, or other assessment upon an Indian tribe. This reference indicates that the Congress realized it was not following the norm of tribal governments operating independently of states. [4]

The compacts between states and tribes have caused a great deal of controversy and the original definition of tribal-state compacts has been redefined by several court cases and congressional acts. This section will address the more prominent actions that have refined the methods of establishing Tribal-State compacts.

Balance between federal, state, and tribal government

Indian gambling has been the source and focus of a great deal of controversy. Part of the reason for this is the ambiguity that surrounds tribal sovereignty in the legal sense.

Brief history of tribal sovereignty and the law

Much of the current understanding of tribal sovereignty can be traced back to John Marshall and his decisions. American government has long operated under the legacy of Worcester v. Georgia , which stated strongly that the history of relations with Indians had established the understanding that tribes were "distinct political communities, having territorial boundaries, within which their authority is exclusive". [5] However, tribes were still subject to federal regulation and laws. As Marshall had already confirmed in Cherokee Nation v. Georgia where he labeled tribes as having a ward relationship to the "guardian" national government. [6] These decisions occurred quite some time ago, but have shaped much of the modern dealings with tribal sovereignty. [7] There have been some exceptions made to allowing states some impact on tribes (such as Public Law 280 and crimes committed by a non-Indian to a non-Indian on tribal land), but for the most part have restricted states from interfering. When states are allowed to regulate tribal activity, there are strict guidelines to be met. [8] On the part of federal action, the assumption is that tribes have the inherent right to govern themselves unless federal action specifically prevents an action. [6]

Indian gambling and tribal sovereignty

The first major case to address Indian gambling and state regulation was California v. Cabazon Band of Mission Indians in 1987. In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that California did not have the right to regulate gaming unless there were criminal prohibitions against gaming in the state. Furthermore, the case set the precedent of only allowing state regulation of the tribes rarely and with federal preemption only. [9] In denying the states the right to regulate tribal gambling, the court had essentially forced the task on to Congress. Thus, the emergence of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act came on October 17, 1988. The act itself was an attempt to provide regulation while maintaining tribal sovereignty. The only "sticky" problem had to do with casino-style gambling. Because casino-style gambling is a "cash business" (relative to bingo) there were many[ who? ] who were concerned that it would attract crime (organized and otherwise). In fact, this was perhaps one of the main concerns on part of the states who were lobbying the federal government for some right to regulate gaming because of the chance of such infiltration. The tribal-state compacts came about as a compromise in concern for the casino-style gambling (Class III). [10] The tribal-state compacts were seen as a necessary and fair political compromise by Congress, but in reality by incorporating these compacts, the IGRA seems to be illustrating a contemporary move towards devolution in some experts' opinions. [11] Compacts do require that tribes cede some jurisdictional powers to state governments. Some[ who? ] may view the IGRA as a means of respecting tribal sovereignty, but in placing the necessity of compacts, the IGRA is actually establishing limitations on the authority of the tribes. [12]

Under the original legislation of the IGRA, Congress did try to maintain the tribal sovereignty. The act created a mechanism to limit state's ability to take advantage of the tribes by allowing tribes to sue states who did not operate in "good faith". If the federal court found that states did not negotiate in good faith, it could then require that a compact be agreed upon within 60 days. If after this time had passed, the interior secretary would be assigned the task of drafting a compact- which may would most likely be a disadvantage to the states. This ability together with the requirement that the Secretary of the Interior approve all gaming compacts worked to ensure federal oversight of any state regulation- which should have softened the blow of tribal state compacts on sovereignty. [13] In 1991, however, Seminole Tribe v. Florida upset the tribal-state balance that Congress had intended under the IGRA. [14] This case ultimately denied tribes the right to sue states based on the Eleventh Amendment (which grants states sovereign immunity). Furthermore, the case ruled that Congress had overstepped its authority in drafting the IGRA. Seminole Tribe, then, acted to remove Congress's limited protection for tribes and removed any mechanisms for enforcing the "good-faith" clause. Experts have noted that in drafting the IGRA, Congress sought to protect the tribes, but in passing the decision in this case, the Court ignored this intention and allowed the balance of power shift in favor of the states. [15]

Compacts in the wake of Seminole

The Seminole case greatly expanded the state power over tribal gaming. In denying tribes the right to bring suit against states, the Court did not halt the compact process, but it did destroy the only remedial scheme devised by Congress for compelling states to negotiate in good faith with their tribal counterparts. [15] Congress had already recognized that without any way to enforce the "good faith" of states, states could simply refuse to negotiate compacts and the tribes would essentially lose its right to conduct gaming. The Court, however, did not seem concerned with this particular consequence to its decision. After the case, some states refused to negotiate, but even more demanded concessions from the tribes (sharing gaming profits among other demands). In some states, tribes had to give up treaty rights to gain receive a chance to get a compact. In Wisconsin, for instance, Governor Tommy Thompson sought to include tribes' rights to hunting and fishing treaty rights as issues for negotiations. Some states have an attempted to bring about revenue sharing, though there are strict regulations under the IGRA for this. [16] The Court had attempted to uphold these restrictions, such as in In re Indian Gaming Related Cases the court held that a state could not violate IGRA's prohibition against the imposition of taxes and should negotiate rather than impose. However, once again in lieu of Seminole, tribes have no means by which to negotiate. Tribal gambling under the law is a dynamic issue that is still contested and there are many proposals for ways to fix the "gap" that the Seminole case left in the IGRA. [15]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Native American gaming</span> Gambling operations on Indian reservations in the United States

Native American gaming comprises casinos, bingo halls, slots halls and other gambling operations on Indian reservations or other tribal lands in the United States. Because these areas have tribal sovereignty, states have limited ability to forbid gambling there, as codified by the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988. As of 2011, there were 460 gambling operations run by 240 tribes, with a total annual revenue of $27 billion.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Tribal sovereignty in the United States</span> Type of political status of Native Americans

Tribal sovereignty in the United States is the concept of the inherent authority of Indigenous tribes to govern themselves within the borders of the United States.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Alabama people</span>

The Alabama or Alibamu are a Southeastern culture people of Native Americans, originally from Alabama. They were members of the Muscogee Creek Confederacy, a loose trade and military organization of autonomous towns; their home lands were on the upper Alabama River.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Turning Stone Resort Casino</span> Casino and Resort in Upstate New York, USA

Turning Stone Resort Casino is a Native American resort casino owned and operated by the Oneida Indian Nation of New York (OIN) in Verona, New York.

Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44 (1996), was a United States Supreme Court case which held that Article One of the U.S. Constitution did not give the United States Congress the power to abrogate the sovereign immunity of the states that is further protected under the Eleventh Amendment. Such abrogation is permitted where it is necessary to enforce the rights of citizens guaranteed under the Fourteenth Amendment as per Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer. The case also held that the doctrine of Ex parte Young, which allows state officials to be sued in their official capacity for prospective injunctive relief, was inapplicable under these circumstances, because any remedy was limited to the one that Congress had provided.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Indian Gaming Regulatory Act</span> US federal law

The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act is a 1988 United States federal law that establishes the jurisdictional framework that governs Indian gaming. There was no federal gaming structure before this act. The stated purposes of the act include providing a legislative basis for the operation/regulation of Indian gaming, protecting gaming as a means of generating revenue for the tribes, encouraging economic development of these tribes, and protecting the enterprises from negative influences. The law established the National Indian Gaming Commission and gave it a regulatory mandate. The law also delegated new authority to the U.S. Department of the Interior and created new federal offenses, giving the U.S. Department of Justice authority to prosecute them.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Gambling in the United States</span>

In the United States, gambling is subject to a variety of legal restrictions. In 2008, gambling activities generated gross revenues of $92.27 billion in the United States.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">National Indian Gaming Commission</span> United States gambling regulatory agency

The National Indian Gaming Commission is a United States federal regulatory agency within the Department of the Interior. Congress established the agency pursuant to the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act in 1988.

The Seminole Tribe of Florida is a federally recognized Seminole tribe based in the U.S. state of Florida. Together with the Seminole Nation of Oklahoma and the Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida, it is one of three federally recognized Seminole entities. It received that status in 1957. Today, it has six Indian reservations in Florida.

<i>Seminole Tribe v. Butterworth</i>

Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Butterworth, 658 F.2d 310, was a United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit case that significantly influenced the development of modern Indian Gaming law. In Seminole Tribe, the Fifth Circuit ruled that the State of Florida did not have authority to enforce the Florida Bingo Statute on the Seminole Tribe of Florida's reservation, even though Florida is a Public Law 280 state with special rights to extend criminal and limited civil jurisdiction over Indian Country. Because of the decision, the Seminole Tribe was able to build and operate the nation's first tribally-owned high-stakes bingo parlor on their reservation in Florida, even though bingo for profit was illegal under Florida law at the time. Many other tribes later followed the Seminole Tribe's lead by building their own bingo parlors on their reservations, leading many scholars to call the Seminole Tribe's victory in this case the "birth" of modern commercial gambling on reservations.

California v. Cabazon Band of Mission Indians, 480 U.S. 202 (1987), was a United States Supreme Court case involving the development of Native American gaming. The Supreme Court's decision effectively overturned the existing laws restricting gaming/gambling on U.S. Indian reservations.

Montana v. United States, 450 U.S. 544 (1981), was a Supreme Court case that addressed two issues: (1) Whether the title of the Big Horn Riverbed rested with the United States, in trust for the Crow Tribe or passed to the State of Montana upon becoming a state and (2) Whether Crow Tribe retained the power to regulate hunting and fishing on tribal lands owned in fee-simple by a non-tribal member. First, the Court held that Montana held title to the Big Horn Riverbed because the Equal Footing Doctrine required the United States to pass title to the newly incorporated State. Second, the Court held that Crow Tribe lacked the power to regulate nonmember hunting and fishing on fee-simple land owned by nonmembers, but within the bounds of its reservation. More broadly, the Court held that Tribes could not exercise regulatory authority over nonmembers on fee-simple land within the reservation unless (1) the nonmember entered a "consensual relationship" with the Tribe or its members or (2) the nonmember's "conduct threatens or has some direct effect on the political integrity, the economic security, or the health or welfare of the tribe."

United States v. Lara, 541 U.S. 193 (2004), was a United States Supreme Court landmark case which held that both the United States and a Native American (Indian) tribe could prosecute an Indian for the same acts that constituted crimes in both jurisdictions. The Court held that the United States and the tribe were separate sovereigns; therefore, separate tribal and federal prosecutions did not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause.

The impact of Native American gaming depends on the tribe and its location. In the 1970s, various tribes took unprecedented action to initiate gaming enterprises. In this revitalization of the Native American economy, they created a series of legal struggles between the federal, state, and tribal governments. Gaming has stimulated tribal economies by providing jobs and generating revenue but has also been controversial through its threat to tribal sovereignty, disputes over the negative impact of gaming, and a loss of Native American culture. The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act was passed in 1988 to secure collaboration between the states and tribes and also for the federal government to oversee gaming operations.

Bryan v. Itasca County, 426 U.S. 373 (1976), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that a state did not have the right to assess a tax on the property of a Native American (Indian) living on tribal land absent a specific Congressional grant of authority to do so.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Connecticut Indian Land Claims Settlement</span> Indian Land Claims Settlement

The Connecticut Indian Land Claims Settlement was an Indian Land Claims Settlement passed by the United States Congress in 1983. The settlement act ended a lawsuit by the Mashantucket Pequot Tribe to recover 800 acres of their 1666 reservation in Ledyard, Connecticut. The state sold this property in 1855 without gaining ratification by the Senate. In a federal land claims suit, the Mashantucket Pequot charged that the sale was in violation of the Nonintercourse Act that regulates commerce between Native Americans and non-Indians.

James Edward Billie, known as Chief Jim Billie, is a politician who chaired the Seminole Tribe of Florida from 1979 to 2001, and again from 2011 to 2016.

New Mexico v. Mescalero Apache Tribe, 462 U.S. 324 (1983), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the application of New Mexico's laws to on-reservation hunting and fishing by nonmembers of the Tribe is preempted by the operation of federal law.

The Koi Nation of the Lower Lake Rancheria is a federally recognized tribe of Southeastern Pomo people in northern California. Their name for their tribe is Koi Nation of Northern California, from their traditional village, Koi, once located on an island in Clear Lake.

Michigan v. Bay Mills Indian Community, 572 U.S. 782 (2014), was a United States Supreme Court case examining whether a federal court has jurisdiction over activity that violates the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act but takes place off Indian lands, and, if so, whether tribal sovereign immunity prevents a state from suing in federal court. In a 5–4 decision, the Court held that the State of Michigan's suit against Bay Mills is barred by tribal immunity.

References

  1. ↑ Witmer, Corntassel. Forced Federalism: Contemporary Challenges to Indigenous Nationhood. Volume 3 of American Indian Law and Policy Series. University of Oklahoma Press, 2006 (110-111).
  2. ↑ Haugen, David M. Legalized Gambling. New York: Infobase Publishing, 2006 (235).
  3. ↑ Haugen, David M. Legalized Gambling. New York: Infobase Publishing, 2006. (44-45)
  4. ↑ Haugen, David M. Legalized Gambling. New York: Infobase Publishing, 2006. (235-237)
  5. ↑ Canby, William C. American Indian Law in a Nutshell. St. Paul, MN: West, 2004.
  6. 1 2 Canby, William C. American Indian Law in a Nutshell. St. Paul, MN: West, 2004. 15
  7. ↑ Canby, William C. American Indian Law in a Nutshell. St. Paul, MN: West, 2004. 18
  8. ↑ Canby, William C. American Indian Law in a Nutshell. St. Paul, MN: West, 2004. (88-89)
  9. ↑ Light, Steven Andrew, and Kathyryn R.L. Rand. Indian Gaming and Tribal Sovereignty: The Casino Compromise. University Press of Kansas, 2005.
  10. ↑ Light, Steven Andrew, and Kathyryn R.L. Rand. Indian Gaming and Tribal Sovereignty: The Casino Compromise. University Press of Kansas, 2005 (44-46)
  11. ↑ Witmer, Corntassel. Forced Federalism: Contemporary Challenges to Indigenous Nationhood. Volume 3 of American Indian Law and Policy Series. University of Oklahoma Press,2006.(17)
  12. ↑ Light, Steven Andrew, and Kathyryn R.L. Rand. Indian Gaming and Tribal Sovereignty: The Casino Compromise. University Press of Kansas, 2005. (6-7)
  13. ↑ Light, Steven Andrew, and Kathyryn R.L. Rand. Indian Gaming and Tribal Sovereignty: The Casino Compromise. University Press of Kansas, 2005 (48-49)
  14. ↑ Kramer, Kelly B.. "Current Issues in Indian Gaming: Casino Lands and Gaming Compacts." Gaming Law Review 7, Number 5(2003): 1-7.
  15. 1 2 3 Rausch, Chris. "The Problem with Good Faith: The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act a Decade after Seminole." Gaming Law Review 11, Number 4(2007): 1-13.
  16. ↑ Light, Steven Andrew, and Kathyryn R.L. Rand. Indian Gaming and Tribal Sovereignty: The Casino Compromise. University Press of Kansas, 2005.56-59
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.