The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld the right of the Ysleta del Sur Pueblo to offer electronic bingo on its reservation, affirming that Texas cannot regulate tribal gaming activities. This decision is rooted in the Ysleta del Sur and Alabama and Coushatta Indian Tribes of Texas Restoration Act of 1987, which reinstated the tribes' federally recognized status. Under this act, all gaming activities prohibited by Texan law are also banned on tribal lands, yet the state cannot impose regulations on tribal gaming.
The tribe began offering electronic bingo in 2016, capitalizing on Texas laws that allow charitable bingo contests. However, state officials attempted to shut down these operations, prompting the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit to side with Texas, citing the absence of legal provisions for electronic bingo under the state's regulations.
The case escalated to the Supreme Court, which noted that Texas itself acknowledged it does not outright prohibit bingo, permitting it for charitable purposes. The court highlighted that Texas's laws lean towards regulation rather than prohibition, declaring, 'From this alone, Texas’ bingo laws appear to fall on the regulatory rather than prohibitory side of the line.'
Texas contended that its operational rules effectively banned bingo, unless specific conditions were met, but the court dismissed this stance. It pointed out that Texas’s interpretation violates the principle that laws regulating an activity should not be construed as prohibitive.
The Restoration Act features a clause where the tribe expressed opposition to Texas legislation aimed at applying state gaming laws to tribal lands. In a closely divided 5-4 ruling, the majority opinion, written by Justice Neil Gorsuch, emphasized the relevance of the 1987 Supreme Court decision in California v. Cabazon Band of Mission Indians, which determined that California's handling of bingo activities was more regulatory than prohibitory. This precedent was crucial in forming the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) to clarify tribal gaming laws.
Gorsuch asserted that Congress's enactment of the Restoration Act occurred with an understanding of the Cabazon ruling, emphasizing, 'This court generally assumes that, when congress enacts statutes, it is aware of this court’s relevant precedents.' He added that the ruling does not permit tribes to offer any gaming as they please, but instead clarifies that specific gaming activities prohibited by Texas law also cannot occur on tribal lands.
The court reiterated that IGRA was in line with the tribe's own resolution to refrain from applying Texas gaming regulations on its land. Chief Justice John Roberts, in dissent, argued that the tribe had requested amendments to the bill that would have constrained all gambling under Texas law on its reservation. He suggested this case should not simply be framed as prohibition versus regulation.
The case will be returned to the Fifth Circuit for reconsideration based on the Supreme Court's interpretation. Brant Martin, the tribe's attorney, expressed satisfaction with the verdict and indicated ongoing litigation would ensue. 'The tribe is obviously very pleased with the vindication offered by the opinion handed down by the Supreme Court of the United States this morning, and the fact that the court agreed with our interpretation of the Restoration Act,' Martin said. 'We look forward to continuing the litigation in the lower courts under the guidance provided by the opinion.'
