search.noResults

search.searching

dataCollection.invalidEmail
note.createNoteMessage

search.noResults

search.searching

orderForm.title

orderForm.productCode
orderForm.description
orderForm.quantity
orderForm.itemPrice
orderForm.price
orderForm.totalPrice
orderForm.deliveryDetails.billingAddress
orderForm.deliveryDetails.deliveryAddress
orderForm.noItems
30 YEARS OF TRIBAL GAMING 30 years of


revenues nationwide. A September 2017 American Gaming Association (AGA)


A 40 MAY 2018


study revealed that Class II and Class III tribal operations easily compete with commercial casinos. Alan Meister, Ph.D. of Nathan Associates Inc., claims tribal gaming has increased 300-fold from a $121 million business of bingo halls and gaming facilities to an industry of 490 gaming locations in 28 states. California, Oklahoma and Florida each top $5 billion in revenues. IGRA wanted federally-recognized Indian tribes to use


casino gaming to promote self-sufficiency and strong tribal governments while improving reservation economies and infrastructure development. The law followed the February 1987 US Supreme Court California v. Cabazon Band of Mission Indians decision. The Cabazons battled to freely conduct high-stakes bingo and poker on their reservation lands near Palm Springs. California cited a 1953 federal public law that awarded


states broad power over criminal jurisdictions, but limited their civil authority. California argued Cabazon’s games were criminal, but the Court denied them, stating that like many other states, California permitted state lottery gambling. IGRA brought major changes. Historically, 1880s laws


allowed the US Department of the Interior (DOI) to take Indian reservation lands into trust and claim ownership. Any federal compromise would have to factor tribal diversity and


lmost everyone got it wrong; few predicted tribal gaming’s explosive success following the 1988 Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA). Today, US tribal gaming is a $30 billion business, comprising 44 per cent of annual


clear geographic, economic and cultural variations into the plans. A one-size-fits-all formula would fail, so each state had to design individual tribal agreements, or compacts.


WHO GOT THE POWER? Despite tribes living on reservation land for generations, IGRA still required federal recognition for compact eligibility and negotiations. Arizona’s Snell & Wilmer LLP Senior Partner Heidi McNeil Staudenmaier, an Indian gaming attorney since the 1980s, has helped both tribes and state navigate the federal statutory scheme. She says, “IGRA only allow tribes to conduct gaming on


land recognized as reservation lands or designated ‘Indian Lands’ eligible for gaming before October 17, 1988. Certain exceptions are allowed, including newly federally-recognized tribes, tribes with federal recognition restored and tribes settling land disputes. Tribes believe they have the inherent right to operate


reservation gaming on their lands and IGRA provided the regulatory and jurisdictional structure for Class II and Class III gaming. Through compacts, the tribes agreed to certain participation and involvement in Class III gaming with the states, while Class II gaming is wholly within the jurisdiction of the tribes and federal government.” IGRA uses regulations to benefit the tribes and also


prevent organized crime from infiltrating all gaming operations. A state compact may not tax tribal casinos, but may allow for revenue sharing agreements under certain circumstances. “ Another IGRA provision established the independent National Indian Gaming Commission (NIGC) federal


Lukas/Adobe Stock


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90