25 C.F.R. § 501.2

Scope

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Tribes and other operators of class II and class III gaming operations on Indian lands shall conduct gaming operations according to the requirements of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, the regulations of this chapter, tribal law and, where applicable, the requirements of a compact or procedures prescribed by the Secretary under 25 U.S.C. 2710(d).

(b) Class I gaming on Indian lands is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Indian tribes and shall not be subject to the provisions of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act or this chapter.

(c) Class II gaming on Indian lands shall continue to be within the jurisdiction of an Indian tribe, but shall be subject to the provisions of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act and this chapter.

(d) Nothing in the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act or this chapter shall impair the right of an Indian tribe to regulate class III gaming on its Indian lands concurrently with a State, except to the extent that such regulation is inconsistent with, or less stringent than, the State laws and regulations made applicable by a Tribal-State compact that is entered into by an Indian tribe under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act and that is in effect.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 2 cases, 2001–2005 · leading case: Catskill Dev., L.L.C. v. Park Place Ent. Corp., 154 F. Supp. 2d 696 (S.D.N.Y. 2001).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Catskill Dev., L.L.C. v. Park Place Ent. Corp., 154 F. Supp. 2d 696 (S.D.N.Y. 2001). “See 25 C.F.R. § 501.2 (d) ("Nothing in the [IGRA] or this Chapter shall impair the right of an Indian tribe to regulate class III gaming on its Indian lands concurrently with a State, except to the extent that such regulation is inconsistent with, or less stringent than, the…”

Colorado River Indian Tribes v. Nat'l Indian Gaming Comm'n, 383 F. Supp. 2d 123 (D.D.C. 2005). “” 25 C.F.R. § 501.2 . This regulation is inconsistent with the eventual promulgation of the MICS, which provide that "[i]f an internal control standard or a requirement set forth in this part provides a level of control that exceeds the level of control under an internal control…”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.