18 U.S.C. § 1166

Gambling in Indian country

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 18 CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Subject to subsection (c), for purposes of Federal law, all State laws pertaining to the licensing, regulation, or prohibition of gambling, including but not limited to criminal sanctions applicable thereto, shall apply in Indian country in the same manner and to the same extent as such laws apply elsewhere in the State.(b) Whoever in Indian country is guilty of any act or omission involving gambling, whether or not conducted or sanctioned by an Indian tribe, which, although not made punishable by any enactment of Congress, would be punishable if committed or omitted within the jurisdiction of the State in which the act or omission occurred, under the laws governing the licensing, regulation, or prohibition of gambling in force at the time of such act or omission, shall be guilty of a like offense and subject to a like punishment.(c) For the purpose of this section, the term “gambling” does not include—(1) class I gaming or class II gaming regulated by the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, or(2) class III gaming conducted under a Tribal-State compact approved by the Secretary of the Interior under section 11(d)(8) of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act that is in effect.(d) The United States shall have exclusive jurisdiction over criminal prosecutions of violations of State gambling laws that are made applicable under this section to Indian country, unless an Indian tribe pursuant to a Tribal-State compact approved by the Secretary of the Interior under section 11(d)(8) of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, or under any other provision of Federal law, has consented to the transfer to the State of criminal jurisdiction with respect to gambling on the lands of the Indian tribe.(Added Pub. L. 100–497, § 23, Oct. 17, 1988, 102 Stat. 2487.)Editorial NotesReferences in Text

The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, referred to in subsec. (c), is Pub. L. 100–497, Oct. 17, 1988, 102 Stat. 2467, which enacted sections 1166 to 1168 of this title and chapter 25 (§ 2701 et seq.) of Title 25, Indians. Section 11(d)(8) of such Act is classified to section 2710(d)(8) of Title 25. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 2701 of Title 25 and Tables.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 85 cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1989–2025 · leading case: Texas v. United States, 497 F.3d 491 (5th Cir. 2007).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Texas v. United States, 497 F.3d 491 (5th Cir. 2007). · cites it 10× “Second, 18 U.S.C. § 1166 punishes gambling in Indian country in derogation of state law.”

State of Alabama v. PCI Gaming Auth., 801 F.3d 1278 (11th Cir. 2015). · cites it 13× “Second, Alabama contends that by incorporating state laws governing gambling into federal law, 18 U.S.C. § 1166 creates a right of action for a state to sue in federal court to enforce its laws on Indian lands.”

Michigan v. Bay Mills Indian Cmty., 134 S. Ct. 2024 (2014). · cites it 5× “18 U. S. C. §1166 (a), (d). Michigan briefly argues that, by negative implication, §1166 gives a State the power “to bring a civil suit to enforce [its] anti-gambling laws in Indian country,” and that this power applies “even when the defendant is an Indian tribe.”

Pueblo of Pojoaque v. New Mexico, 214 F. Supp. 3d 1028 (D.N.M. 2016). · cites it 10× “” Qualified Immunity Motion at 16 (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 1166 (d)). The Individual Defendants argue, however, that New Mexico has not “criminally prosecut[ed] anyone, let alone the Pueblo.”

United States v. Burns, 725 F. Supp. 116 (N.D.N.Y. 1989). · cites it 18× “§§ 1175 and 1176, or knowingly advancing or profiting from unlawful gambling activity within Indian country, 18 U.S.C. § 1166 (b). Various other charges have been asserted against a number of the defendants arising out of the efforts of the State Police to arrest certain…”

Hotel Employees & Restaurant Employees Int'l Union v. Davis, 981 P.2d 990 (Cal. 1999). · cites it 8× “and 18 U.S.C. § 1166 et seq.), before any such compact could go into effect, the Secretary of the Interior had to publish notice in the Federal Register that he had given his approval within a prescribed review period of 45 days.”

Pueblo of Pojoaque v. New Mexico, 233 F. Supp. 3d 1021 (D.N.M. 2017). · cites it 8× “Absent a gaming compact, 18 U.S.C. § 1166 (a) provides that, “for purposes of Federal law, all State laws pertaining to the licensing, regulation, or prohibition of gambling .”

Dalton v. Pataki, 835 N.E.2d 1180 (NY 2005). · cites it 6× “Plaintiffs argue that 18 USC § 1166 allows for the constitutional ban on commercial gambling in article I, § 9 to be applied to Indian lands.”

Artichoke Joe's v. Norton, 216 F. Supp. 2d 1084 (E.D. Cal. 2002). · cites it 5× “Moreover, they argue that if the court invalidates the compacts and Proposition 1A, the State would lose its power to stop any continued class III gaming because, in the absence of a valid IGRA-sanctioned compact, 18 U.S.C. § 1166 gives the federal government exclusive…”

Pueblo of Pojoaque v. State of New Mexico, 863 F.3d 1226 (10th Cir. 2017). · cites it 8× “See 18 U.S.C. § 1166 (d); United Keetoowah, 927 F.”

Cossey v. Cherokee Nation Enter., LLC, 2009 OK 6 (Okla. 2009). · cites it 4× “[6] 18 U.S.C. § 1166 . ¶ 7 Rather than set aside state interests in Indian-country gaming activities catering to the state's residents and visitors, IGRA authorizes the extension of state law over class III gaming activities in Indian country.”

Rhode Island v. Narragansett Indian Tribe, 19 F.3d 685 (1st Cir. 1994). · cites it 3× “18 U.S.C. § 1166 (d). This proviso, Rhode Island asseverates, presages an exemption applicable to the settlement lands.”

Show all 85 citing cases →

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.