|
|
 Volume 10, Fall 2002 |
|
|
|
Protecting California CILS Partners on Tax Assistance Project Court Upholds CA Board Member Profile: Home Ownership: Indian Housing Law Practice at CILS CILS Fights to Preserve Indian Organizations Working for You: Indian Child and Family Services CILS Domestic Violence Initiative Tribal TANF Making Great Strides in CA |
Court Upholds California Gaming Compacts A federal district court in Sacramento has rejected a lawsuit brought by several California card room operators and upheld the validity of California’s tribal gaming compacts. In late July, Judge David Levi determined that the compacts negotiated by the state did not violate federal law or the United States Constitution. In their suit, the card rooms contended that tribes’ monopoly on banked gaming and slot machines (i.e. class III gaming) violated the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) and the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution. IGRA allows class III gaming on Indian lands if the activities are “located in a State the permits such gaming for any purpose by any person, organization, or entity.” The card rooms argued that Congress intended the word “any” to mean “every,” and that tribes could not engage in class III gaming unless the state permitted every person, organization, or entity the same opportunity. The court rejected the card rooms’ argument and found that the word “any” clearly means any person, organization, or entity – including Indian tribes. Since Proposition 1A amended the California Constitution to permit class III gaming by Indian tribes, the Secretary of the Interior had not erred in approving the compacts under IGRA. Importantly, in rejecting the card rooms' Constitutional arguments, the court held that compacts negotiated under IGRA further Congress’ unique obligation to tribes. The unique role tribes have in our federal system of government allows special treatment of tribes and Indians, and such special treatment will only be found to be unconstitutional if there is no rational basis for Congress’ actions. The court concluded that Congress’ explicit delegation of power to California to negotiate and approve compacts with Indian tribes was a rational means of fulfilling its trust obligation. Since the court issued its decision, which was a resounding victory for California tribes and the overwhelming majority of voters who supported tribes in the Proposition 5 and 1A campaigns, the card rooms have appealed and filed new suits. CILS will continue to provide information to the California Indian community as further events unfold. |
