25 C.F.R. § 542.4

How do these regulations affect minimum internal control standards established in a Tribal-State compact?

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

(a) If there is a direct conflict between an internal control standard established in a Tribal-State compact and a standard or requirement set forth in this part, then the internal control standard established in a Tribal-State compact shall prevail.

(b) If an internal control standard in a Tribal-State compact provides a level of control that equals or exceeds the level of control under an internal control standard or requirement set forth in this part, then the Tribal-State compact standard shall prevail.

(c) If 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 standard established in a Tribal-State compact, then the internal control standard or requirement set forth in this part shall prevail.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 1 case, 2006–2006 · leading case: Colorado River Indian Tribes v. Nat'l Indian Gaming Comm'n, 466 F.3d 134 (D.C. Cir. 2006).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Colorado River Indian Tribes v. Nat'l Indian Gaming Comm'n, 466 F.3d 134 (D.C. Cir. 2006). “” 25 C.F.R. § 542.4 (c). There are other indications that Congress intended to leave the regulation of class III gaming to the tribes and the states, including the fact that the Secretary of the Interior — rather than the Commission — approves (or disapproves) tribal-state…”

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.