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

25 U.S.C. § 2703

Definitions

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 25 CasesGoogle Scholar
For purposes of this chapter—(1) The term “Attorney General” means the Attorney General of the United States.(2) The term “Chairman” means the Chairman of the National Indian Gaming Commission.(3) The term “Commission” means the National Indian Gaming Commission established pursuant to section 2704 of this title.(4) The term “Indian lands” means—(A) all lands within the limits of any Indian reservation; and(B) any lands title to which is either held in trust by the United States for the benefit of any Indian tribe or individual or held by any Indian tribe or individual subject to restriction by the United States against alienation and over which an Indian tribe exercises governmental power.(5) The term “Indian tribe” means any Indian tribe, band, nation, or other organized group or community of Indians which—(A) is recognized as eligible by the Secretary for the special programs and services provided by the United States to Indians because of their status as Indians, and(B) is recognized as possessing powers of self-government.(6) The term “class I gaming” means social games solely for prizes of minimal value or traditional forms of Indian gaming engaged in by individuals as a part of, or in connection with, tribal ceremonies or celebrations.(7)(A) The term “class II gaming” means—(i) the game of chance commonly known as bingo (whether or not electronic, computer, or other technologic aids are used in connection therewith)—(I) which is played for prizes, including monetary prizes, with cards bearing numbers or other designations,(II) in which the holder of the card covers such numbers or designations when objects, similarly numbered or designated, are drawn or electronically determined, and(III) in which the game is won by the first person covering a previously designated arrangement of numbers or designations on such cards,including (if played in the same location) pull-tabs, lotto, punch boards, tip jars, instant bingo, and other games similar to bingo, and(ii) card games that—(I) are explicitly authorized by the laws of the State, or(II) are not explicitly prohibited by the laws of the State and are played at any location in the State,but only if such card games are played in conformity with those laws and regulations (if any) of the State regarding hours or periods of operation of such card games or limitations on wagers or pot sizes in such card games.(B) The term “class II gaming” does not include—(i) any banking card games, including baccarat, chemin de fer, or blackjack (21), or(ii) electronic or electromechanical facsimiles of any game of chance or slot machines of any kind.(C) Notwithstanding any other provision of this paragraph, the term “class II gaming” includes those card games played in the State of Michigan, the State of North Dakota, the State of South Dakota, or the State of Washington, that were actually operated in such State by an Indian tribe on or before May 1, 1988, but only to the extent of the nature and scope of the card games that were actually operated by an Indian tribe in such State on or before such date, as determined by the Chairman.(D) Notwithstanding any other provision of this paragraph, the term “class II gaming” includes, during the 1-year period beginning on October 17, 1988, any gaming described in subparagraph (B)(ii) that was legally operated on Indian lands on or before May 1, 1988, if the Indian tribe having jurisdiction over the lands on which such gaming was operated requests the State, by no later than the date that is 30 days after October 17, 1988, to negotiate a Tribal-State compact under section 2710(d)(3) of this title.(E) Notwithstanding any other provision of this paragraph, the term “class II gaming” includes, during the 1-year period beginning on December 17, 1991, any gaming described in subparagraph (B)(ii) that was legally operated on Indian lands in the State of Wisconsin on or before May 1, 1988, if the Indian tribe having jurisdiction over the lands on which such gaming was operated requested the State, by no later than November 16, 1988, to negotiate a Tribal-State compact under section 2710(d)(3) of this title.(F) If, during the 1-year period described in subparagraph (E), there is a final judicial determination that the gaming described in subparagraph (E) is not legal as a matter of State law, then such gaming on such Indian land shall cease to operate on the date next following the date of such judicial decision.(8) The term “class III gaming” means all forms of gaming that are not class I gaming or class II gaming.(9) The term “net revenues” means gross revenues of an Indian gaming activity less amounts paid out as, or paid for, prizes and total operating expenses, excluding management fees.(10) The term “Secretary” means the Secretary of the Interior.(Pub. L. 100–497, § 4, Oct. 17, 1988, 102 Stat. 2467; Pub. L. 102–238, § 2(a), Dec. 17, 1991, 105 Stat. 1908; Pub. L. 102–497, § 16, Oct. 24, 1992, 106 Stat. 3261.)Editorial NotesReferences in Text

This chapter, referred to in text, was in the original “this Act”, meaning Pub. L. 100–497, Oct. 17, 1988, 102 Stat. 2467, known as the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, which is classified principally to this chapter. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 2701 of this title and Tables.

Amendments

1992—Par. (7)(E). Pub. L. 102–497 struck out “or Montana” after “Wisconsin”.

1991—Par. (7)(E), (F). Pub. L. 102–238 added subpars. (E) and (F).

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesClass II Gaming With Respect to Indian Tribes in Wisconsin or Montana Engaged in Negotiating Tribal-State Compacts

Pub. L. 101–301, § 6, May 24, 1990, 104 Stat. 209, provided that: “Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the term ‘class II gaming’ includes, for purposes of applying Public Law 100–497 [25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.] with respect to any Indian tribe located in the State of Wisconsin or the State of Montana, during the 1-year period beginning on the date of enactment of this Act [May 24, 1990], any gaming described in section 4(7)(B)(ii) of Public Law 100–497 [25 U.S.C. 2703(7)(B)(ii)] that was legally operated on Indian lands on or before May 1, 1988, if the Indian tribe having jurisdiction over the lands on which such gaming was operated made a request, by no later than November 16, 1988, to the State in which such gaming is operated to negotiate a Tribal-State compact under section 11(d)(3) of Public Law 100–497 [25 U.S.C. 2710(d)(3)].”

Tribal-State Compact Covering Indian Tribes in Minnesota; Operation of Class II Games; Allowance of Additional Year for Negotiations

Pub. L. 101–121, title I, § 118, Oct. 23, 1989, 103 Stat. 722, provided that: “Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the term ‘Class II gaming’ in Public Law 100–497 [25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.], for any Indian tribe located in the State of Minnesota, includes, during the period commencing on the date of enactment of this Act [Oct. 23, 1989] and continuing for 365 days from that date, any gaming described in section 4(7)(B)(ii) of Public Law 100–497 [25 U.S.C. 2703(7)(B)(ii)] that was legally operated on Indian lands on or before May 1, 1988, if the Indian tribe having jurisdication [sic] over the lands on which such gaming was operated, requested the State of Minnesota, no later than 30 days after the date of enactment of Public Law 100–497 [Oct. 17, 1988], to negotiate a tribal-state compact pursuant to section 11(d)(3) of Public Law 100–497 [25 U.S.C. 2710(d)(3)].”

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 322 cases (24 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 17× “Class I gaming means "social games solely for prizes of minimal value or traditional forms of Indian gaming engaged in by individuals as a part of, or in connection with, tribal ceremonies or celebrations" ( 25 USC § 2703 [6]). Class II gaming is defined in 25 USC § 2703 (7) (A)…”
Stand up for California v. State of Cal., 6 Cal. App. 5th 686 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 31× “( 25 U.S.C. § 2703 (6)-(8).) In September 2011, DOI made a finding that, within the meaning of IGRA, taking the land into trust for the purpose of gaming would be in the best interest of North Fork and would not be detrimental to the surrounding community.”
Dalton v. Pataki, 835 N.E.2d 1180 (NY 2005). · cites it 11× “Class I gaming consists of "social games solely for prizes of minimal value or traditional forms of Indian gaming engaged in by individuals as a part of, or in connection with, tribal ceremonies or celebrations" ( 25 USC § 2703 [6]; see also 25 CFR 502.2).”
Seneca-Cayuga Tribe v. Nat'l Indian Gaming Comm'n, 327 F.3d 1019 (10th Cir. 2003). · cites it 10× “25 U.S.C. § 2703 . The three classes differ as to the extent of federal, tribal, and state oversight.”
Texas v. United States, 497 F.3d 491 (5th Cir. 2007). · cites it 6× “25 U.S.C. §§ 2703 (7), 2706(b), 2710(a), (b) & (c).”
Hotel Employees & Restaurant Employees Int'l Union v. Davis, 981 P.2d 990 (Cal. 1999). · cites it 10× “" ( 25 U.S.C. § 2703 (6), (7), (8).) Class I gaming is "social games solely for prizes of minimal value or traditional forms of Indian gaming engaged in by individuals as a part of, or in connection with, tribal ceremonies or celebrations.”
Pueblo of Pojoaque v. New Mexico, 214 F. Supp. 3d 1028 (D.N.M. 2016). · cites it 8× “§§ 2710 (d), permitting the operation of casino-style gaming on Pojoaque Pueblo’s tribal lands, see 25 U.S.C. § 2703 (8). See Complaint ¶ 46, at 16.”
North Cnty. Cmty. All., Inc. v. Salazar, 573 F.3d 738 (9th Cir. 2009). · cites it 8× “IGRA limits tribal gaming to locations on "Indian lands" as defined in 25 U.S.C. § 2703 (4). The Alliance claims that the NIGC violated IGRA by failing to determine whether the land on which the Casino is built is Indian land, either in 1993 when it approved the Ordinance or in…”
State of New York v. Shinnecock Indian Nation, 686 F.3d 133 (2d Cir. 2012). · cites it 6× “Only by demonstrating (1) that the tribe does not hold aboriginal title to the land and (2) 8 that Westwoods in fact is not Indian land within the meaning of 25 U.S.C. § 2703 (4) and 18 9 U.S.C. § 1151― two issues that are irrefutably questions of federal law and ones reflecting…”
State of Arizona v. Tohono O'Odham Nation, 818 F.3d 549 (9th Cir. 2016). · cites it 4× “The Compact defines “Indian Lands” as “lands defined in 25 U.S.C. § 2703 (4)(A) and (B), 2 subject to the provisions of 25 U.”
Catskill Dev., L.L.C. v. Park Place Ent. Corp., 547 F.3d 115 (2d Cir. 2008). · cites it 4× “” 25 U.S.C. § 2703 (4) (emphasis added). 14 The Catskill Group argues that while the LPA contemplated a land transfer from Catskill to the United States in trust for the Tribe, the land was owned by Catskill at all relevant times, and thus was not land that “is” Indian land…”
Cayuga Nation v. Howard Tanner, 6 F.4th 361 (2d Cir. 2021). · cites it 4× “” 25 U.S.C. § 2703 (4)(A). After considering the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment, the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York (David N.”
Show all 322 citing cases →
— 25 U.S.C. § 2703(7)(A)(ii) — 1 case
United States v. Sisseton-Wahpeton Sioux Tribe, 897 F.2d 358 (8th Cir. 1990).
— 25 U.S.C. § 2703(8) — 1 case
Pueblo of Pojoaque v. New Mexico, 233 F. Supp. 3d 1021 (D.N.M. 2017).
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.