 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Doe v. Pueblo6/28/2005
Congress began to consider a resolution to the tribal-state conflict over gaming as early as 1983. See 129 Cong. Rec. 34,184 (1983) (statement of Ariz. Rep. Morris Udall). However, it was not until the Supreme Court's decision in California v. Cabazon Band of Mission Indians, 480 U.S. 202 (1987) [hereinafter Cabazon], that Congress was able to work out a compromise between state and tribal interests. S. Rep. No. 100-446, at 4. In Cabazon, the Cabazon Band of Mission Indians argued that a California law regulating bingo could not be enforced on tribal land. 480 U.S. at 206. The Supreme Court agreed with the tribe and held that California could not enforce its bingo laws on the tribe's reservation. Id. at 211-12. The Cabazon decision was issued six days after the bill that would become the IGRA was introduced; nevertheless, the Cabazon case persuaded many tribes that legislation on the subject was inevitable and that reaching a compromise with the states might yield legislation that was more solicitous of tribal interests. See S. Rep. No. 100-446, at 4.
The IGRA became law on October 17, 1988. See Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Pub. L. No. 100-497, 102 Stat. 2467, 2467 (1988) (codified, as amended, at 25 U.S.C. ยงยง 2701 to 2721). The legislative history leading to its passage clearly reveals that the IGRA was an effort by Congress to reach a compromise between the states and the tribes. See, e.g., 134 Cong. Rec. 25,377 (1988) (statement of Ariz. Rep. Morris Udall, chair of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs) (stating that the IGRA "is a delicately balanced compromise"); 134 Cong. Rec. S12643, S12650 (daily ed. Sept. 15, 1988) (statement of Haw. Sen. Daniel Inouye, chair of the Select Committee on Indian Affairs) (noting that the IGRA "is not the best of all possible worlds" but it is a workable solution to a contentious issue). Many states argued that they should be given complete jurisdiction over gaming on tribal land. See 134 Cong. Rec. at 25,377 (statement of Nev. Rep. Barbara Vucanovich). Supporters of state jurisdiction noted that the " tates . . . have the sovereign right_and the responsibility_to protect their citizens from the threat of criminal activity" that may accompany high-stakes gambling. 134 Cong. Rec. at 25,378 (statement of Cal. Rep. Anthony Coelho); see id. at 25,381 (statement of Nev. Rep. James Bilbray) (noting that the " tates have a constitutional responsibility to protect their citizens from harm, here in the form of . . . victimization by criminal elements that may infiltrate the legal games operated on Indian lands"). Opponents of the IGRA were troubled by the bill's intrusion on Indian sovereignty. See S. Rep. No. 100- 446, at 13; see also 134 Cong. Rec. at 25,379 (statement of Minn. Rep. Gerald Sikorski); 134 Cong. Rec. at S12656-57 (statement of S.D. Sen. Tom Daschle).
Ultimately, Congress adopted a flexible solution that allowed competing state and tribal interests to be balanced on a case-by-case basis. See S. Rep. No. 100-446, at 6 (noting that in crafting the IGRA "the [Indian Affairs] Committee has attempted to balance the need for sound enforcement of gaming laws and regulations, with the strong Federal interest in preserving the sovereign rights of tribal governments to regulate activities and enforce laws on Indian land"); see also 134 Cong. Rec. at 25,378 (Cal. Rep. Anthony Coehlo) (noting that the IGRA "establishes a framework in which Indian tribes and tates can meet as equals, government-to-government, to negotiate an agreement_a compact_for a mutually acceptable method of regulating high-stakes gambling on Indian reservations"). Under the IGRA, each tribe that wishes to engage in Class III gaming must enter into a compact with the affected state.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 New Mexico Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|