U.S. Code » Title 25 » Chapter CHAPTER 29— INDIAN GAMING REGULATION

25 U.S.C. § 2701

Findings

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 25 CasesGoogle Scholar
The Congress finds that—(1) numerous Indian tribes have become engaged in or have licensed gaming activities on Indian lands as a means of generating tribal governmental revenue;(2) Federal courts have held that section 81 of this title requires Secretarial review of management contracts dealing with Indian gaming, but does not provide standards for approval of such contracts;(3) existing Federal law does not provide clear standards or regulations for the conduct of gaming on Indian lands;(4) a principal goal of Federal Indian policy is to promote tribal economic development, tribal self-sufficiency, and strong tribal government; and(5) 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 State which does not, as a matter of criminal law and public policy, prohibit such gaming activity.(Pub. L. 100–497, § 2, Oct. 17, 1988, 102 Stat. 2467.)Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesShort Title

Pub. L. 100–497, § 1, Oct. 17, 1988, 102 Stat. 2467, provided: “That this Act [enacting this chapter and sections 1166 to 1168 of Title 18, Crimes and Criminal Procedure] may be cited as the ‘Indian Gaming Regulatory Act’.”

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 462 cases (44 in the last 5 years), 1989–2026 · leading case: Saratoga Cnty. Chamber of Com., Inc. v. Pataki, 798 N.E.2d 1047 (NY 2003).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Saratoga Cnty. Chamber of Com., Inc. v. Pataki, 798 N.E.2d 1047 (NY 2003). · cites it 8× “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, 835 N.E.2d 1180 (NY 2005). · cites it 6× “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, 517 U.S. 44 (1996). · cites it 2× “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 Int'l Union v. Davis, 981 P.2d 990 (Cal. 1999). · cites it 6× “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 WI 107 (Wis. 2006). · cites it 4× “[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, 896 F.3d 1196 (10th Cir. 2018). · cites it 3× “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 Cmty., 134 S. Ct. 2024 (2014). · cites it 2× “2467 , 25 U. S. C. §2701 et seq., creates a framework for regulating gaming activity on Indian lands.”
Panzer v. Doyle, 2004 WI 52 (Wis. 2004). · cites it 4× “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, 132 S. Ct. 2199 (2012). · cites it 2× “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…”
Am. Greyhound Racing, Inc. v. Hull, 146 F. Supp. 2d 1012 (D. Ariz. 2001). · cites it 5× “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 Cnty. Cmty. All., Inc. v. Salazar, 573 F.3d 738 (9th Cir. 2009). · cites it 4× “" 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, 988 F.3d 618 (2d Cir. 2021). · cites it 2× “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”)…”
Show all 462 citing cases →
— 25 U.S.C. § 2701(4) — 2 cases
Wells Fargo Bank v. Apache Tribe of Oklahoma, 2015 OK CIV APP 10 (Okla. Civ. App. 2014).
In the Matter of the Death of Taylor, 343 P.3d 219 (Okla. Civ. App. 2014).
— 25 U.S.C. § 2701(5) — 3 cases
Pueblo of Pojoaque v. New Mexico, 214 F. Supp. 3d 1028 (D.N.M. 2016).
Wells Fargo Bank v. Apache Tribe of Oklahoma, 2015 OK CIV APP 10 (Okla. Civ. App. 2014).
In the Matter of the Death of Taylor, 343 P.3d 219 (Okla. Civ. App. 2014).
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.