C.F.R. » Title 25 » CHAPTER III—NATIONAL INDIAN GAMING COMMISSION, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR › SUBCHAPTER E—GAMING LICENSES AND BACKGROUND INVESTIGATIONS FOR KEY EMPLOYEES AND PRIMARY MANAGEMENT OFFICIALS › PART 559—FACILITY LICENSE NOTIFICATIONS AND SUBMISSIONS

25 C.F.R. § 559.2

When must a tribe notify the Chair that it is considering issuing a new facility license?

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

(a) A tribe shall submit to the Chair a notice that a facility license is under consideration for issuance at least 120 days before opening any new place, facility, or location on Indian lands where class II or III gaming will occur.

(1) A tribe may request an expedited review of 60 days and the Chair shall respond to the tribe's request, either granting or denying the expedited review, within 30 days.

(2) Although not necessary, a tribe may request written confirmation from the Chair.

(b) The notice shall contain the following:

(1) A legal description of the property;

(2) The tract number for the property as assigned by the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Land Title and Records Offices, if any;

(3) If not maintained by the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Department of the Interior, a copy of the trust or other deed(s) to the property or an explanation as to why such documentation does not exist; and

(4) If not maintained by the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Department of the Interior, documentation of property ownership.

(c) A tribe does not need to submit to the Chair a notice that a facility license is under consideration for issuance for occasional charitable events lasting not more than one week.

[77 FR 58772, Sept. 24, 2012, as amended at 87 FR 43990, July 25, 2022]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 2009–2025 · leading case: North Cnty. Cmty. All., Inc. v. Salazar, 573 F.3d 738 (9th Cir. 2009).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
North Cnty. Cmty. All., Inc. v. Salazar, 573 F.3d 738 (9th Cir. 2009). “…regulations do not expressly require NIGC to make an Indian lands determination after getting that information. See 25 C.F.R. § 559.2 .”
Bd. of Commissioners of Cherokee Cnty., Kansas v. Kempthorne, 956 F. Supp. 2d 116 (D.D.C. 2013). “” 25 C.F.R. § 559.2 (a). “That notice must contain specified information about the location and status of the property on which the facility is to be located, so that the NIGC may determine whether the property is Indian lands eligible for gaming.”
Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians v. Ryan Zinke (D.D.C. 2019). “(citing 25 C.F.R. § 559.2 (a)). 8 Based on these admissions, then, the Department’s decision likely represents the last significant hurdle preventing the Tribe from opening new gaming facilities in the Lower Peninsula.”
Comanche Nation v. Ware (W.D. Okla. 2024). “Comanche Nation learned that on September 18, 2020, the FSA Tribe had submitted a letter to the National Indian Gaming Commission (“NIGC”) informing the NIGC of its intent to construct and open a new tribal gaming facility on the Tsalote Allotment and requesting a 60-day…”
Scotts Valley Band of Pomo Indians v. Burgum (D.D.C. 2025). “25 C.F.R. § 559.2 (a) (regulating Class II gaming under IGRA).”
Scotts Valley Band of Pomo Indians v. Burgum (D.D.C. 2025). “1 (citing 25 C.F.R. § 559.2 ). But that procedural notice requirement does not undermine the Band’s legal right to game.”
North Cnty. Cmty. All., Inc. v. Kempthorne (9th Cir. 2009). “See 25 C.F.R. § 559.2 . 8928 NORTH COUNTY v. SALAZAR out an Indian lands determination, these provisions make no sense and would be unworkable.”
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.