25 U.S.C. § 2701
Findings
Pub. L. 100–497, § 1,
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 462
cases (44 in the last 5 years), 1989–2026 · leading case: Saratoga County Chamber of Commerce, Inc. v. Pataki
Saratoga County Chamber of Commerce, Inc. v. Pataki (2003)
“v Cabazon Band of Mission Indians ( 480 US 202 [1987]), Congress passed IGRA, which declares that "Indian tribes have the exclusive right to regulate gaming activity on Indian lands if the gaming activity is not specifically prohibited by Federal law and is conducted within a…”
Dalton v. Pataki (2005)
“IGRA was enacted, in part, to promote the self-sufficiency and economic development of Indian tribes ( see 25 USC § 2701 [4]; § 2702 [1]). Congress determined that "Indian tribes have the exclusive right to regulate gaming activity on Indian lands if the gaming activity is not…”
Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida (1996)
“Even worse, the Court could not have been unaware that its decision of cases like Hoffman and Welch , on the ground that the statutes at issue lacked a plain statement of intent to abrogate, would invite Congress to attempt abrogation in statutes like the Indian Gaming…”
Hotel Employees & Restaurant Employees International Union v. Davis (1999)
“2467 , as amended, codified at 25 U.S.C. § 2701 et seq. and 18 U.S.C. § 1166 et seq.”
Dairyland Greyhound Park, Inc. v. Doyle (2006)
“[23] ¶ 181 The United States District Court ordered Wisconsin to negotiate over all forms of Class III gaming under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA), 25 U.S.C. § 2701 . The court stated: The parties dispute whether the state is required to include casino games, video…”
Navajo Nation v. Dalley (2018)
“The Tribe agreed not only to waive its sovereign immunity for personal-injury lawsuits brought by visitors to its on-reservation gaming facilities, but also to permit state courts to take jurisdiction over such claims.”
Michigan v. Bay Mills Indian Community (2014)
“2467 , 25 U. S. C. §2701 et seq., creates a framework for regulating gaming activity on Indian lands.”
Panzer v. Doyle (2004)
“In addition to noting the civil-regulatory and criminal-prohibitory distinction addressed in Cabazon Band, the Lac du Flambeau court also commented that the congressional findings set forth in 25 U.S.C. § 2701 (5) supported the proposition that the term "permitted" was not…”
Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians v. Patchak (2012)
“Within that window, an organiza- tion called Michigan Gambling Opposition (or MichGO) —————— 1 Under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, 25 U. S. C. §§2701–2721, an Indian tribe may conduct gaming operations on “Indian lands,” §2710, which include lands “held in trust by the…”
American Greyhound Racing, Inc. v. Hull (2001)
“Tribal gaming in Arizona is governed by the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA), 25 U.S.C. §§ 2701 et seq., and by state law, which IGRA incorporates by reference.”
North County Community Alliance, Inc. v. Salazar (2009)
“" 25 U.S.C. § 2701 (3) (emphasis added). IGRA establishes "independent Federal regulatory authority" and "Federal standards" for gaming "on Indian lands.”
Seneca Nation of Indians v. State of New York (2021)
“In the district court, the Nation argued 2 that the arbitration panel majority manifestly disregarded the Indian Gaming 3 Regulatory Act (“IGRA”), 25 U.S.C. §§ 2701–2721. The Nation argued that the 4 panel usurped the authority of the Secretary of the Interior (the “Secretary”)…”
— 25 U.S.C. § 2701(4) — 2 cases
— 25 U.S.C. § 2701(5) — 3 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.