25 U.S.C. § 2710

Tribal gaming ordinances

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 25 CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Jurisdiction over class I and class II gaming activity(1) Class I gaming on Indian lands is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Indian tribes and shall not be subject to the provisions of this chapter.(2) Any class II gaming on Indian lands shall continue to be within the jurisdiction of the Indian tribes, but shall be subject to the provisions of this chapter.(b) Regulation of class II gaming activity; net revenue allocation; audits; contracts(1) An Indian tribe may engage in, or license and regulate, class II gaming on Indian lands within such tribe’s jurisdiction, if—(A) such Indian gaming is located within a State that permits such gaming for any purpose by any person, organization or entity (and such gaming is not otherwise specifically prohibited on Indian lands by Federal law), and(B) the governing body of the Indian tribe adopts an ordinance or resolution which is approved by the Chairman.A separate license issued by the Indian tribe shall be required for each place, facility, or location on Indian lands at which class II gaming is conducted.(2) The Chairman shall approve any tribal ordinance or resolution concerning the conduct, or regulation of class II gaming on the Indian lands within the tribe’s jurisdiction if such ordinance or resolution provides that—(A) except as provided in paragraph (4), the Indian tribe will have the sole proprietary interest and responsibility for the conduct of any gaming activity;(B) net revenues from any tribal gaming are not to be used for purposes other than—(i) to fund tribal government operations or programs;(ii) to provide for the general welfare of the Indian tribe and its members;(iii) to promote tribal economic development;(iv) to donate to charitable organizations; or(v) to help fund operations of local government agencies;(C) annual outside audits of the gaming, which may be encompassed within existing independent tribal audit systems, will be provided by the Indian tribe to the Commission;(D) all contracts for supplies, services, or concessions for a contract amount in excess of $25,000 annually (except contracts for professional legal or accounting services) relating to such gaming shall be subject to such independent audits;(E) the construction and maintenance of the gaming facility, and the operation of that gaming is conducted in a manner which adequately protects the environment and the public health and safety; and(F) there is an adequate system which—(i) ensures that background investigations are conducted on the primary management officials and key employees of the gaming enterprise and that oversight of such officials and their management is conducted on an ongoing basis; and(ii) includes—(I) tribal licenses for primary management officials and key employees of the gaming enterprise with prompt notification to the Commission of the issuance of such licenses;(II) a standard whereby any person whose prior activities, criminal record, if any, or reputation, habits and associations pose a threat to the public interest or to the effective regulation of gaming, or create or enhance the dangers of unsuitable, unfair, or illegal practices and methods and activities in the conduct of gaming shall not be eligible for employment; and(III) notification by the Indian tribe to the Commission of the results of such background check before the issuance of any of such licenses.(3) Net revenues from any class II gaming activities conducted or licensed by any Indian tribe may be used to make per capita payments to members of the Indian tribe only if—(A) the Indian tribe has prepared a plan to allocate revenues to uses authorized by paragraph (2)(B);(B) the plan is approved by the Secretary as adequate, particularly with respect to uses described in clause (i) or (iii) of paragraph (2)(B);(C) the interests of minors and other legally incompetent persons who are entitled to receive any of the per capita payments are protected and preserved and the per capita payments are disbursed to the parents or legal guardian of such minors or legal incompetents in such amounts as may be necessary for the health, education, or welfare, of the minor or other legally incompetent person under a plan approved by the Secretary and the governing body of the Indian tribe; and(D) the per capita payments are subject to Federal taxation and tribes notify members of such tax liability when payments are made.(4)(A) A tribal ordinance or resolution may provide for the licensing or regulation of class II gaming activities owned by any person or entity other than the Indian tribe and conducted on Indian lands, only if the tribal licensing requirements include the requirements described in the subclauses of subparagraph (B)(i) and are at least as restrictive as those established by State law governing similar gaming within the jurisdiction of the State within which such Indian lands are located. No person or entity, other than the Indian tribe, shall be eligible to receive a tribal license to own a class II gaming activity conducted on Indian lands within the jurisdiction of the Indian tribe if such person or entity would not be eligible to receive a State license to conduct the same activity within the jurisdiction of the State.(B)(i) The provisions of subparagraph (A) of this paragraph and the provisions of subparagraphs (A) and (B) of paragraph (2) shall not bar the continued operation of an individually owned class II gaming operation that was operating on September 1, 1986, if—(I) such gaming operation is licensed and regulated by an Indian tribe pursuant to an ordinance reviewed and approved by the Commission in accordance with section 2712 of this title,(II) income to the Indian tribe from such gaming is used only for the purposes described in paragraph (2)(B) of this subsection,(III) not less than 60 percent of the net revenues is income to the Indian tribe, and(IV) the owner of such gaming operation pays an appropriate assessment to the National Indian Gaming Commission under section 2717(a)(1) of this title for regulation of such gaming.(ii) The exemption from the application of this subsection provided under this subparagraph may not be transferred to any person or entity and shall remain in effect only so long as the gaming activity remains within the same nature and scope as operated on October 17, 1988.(iii) Within sixty days of October 17, 1988, the Secretary shall prepare a list of each individually owned gaming operation to which clause (i) applies and shall publish such list in the Federal Register.(c) Issuance of gaming license; certificate of self-regulation(1) The Commission may consult with appropriate law enforcement officials concerning gaming licenses issued by an Indian tribe and shall have thirty days to notify the Indian tribe of any objections to issuance of such license.(2) If, after the issuance of a gaming license by an Indian tribe, reliable information is received from the Commission indicating that a primary management official or key employee does not meet the standard established under subsection (b)(2)(F)(ii)(II), the Indian tribe shall suspend such license and, after notice and hearing, may revoke such license.(3) Any Indian tribe which operates a class II gaming activity and which—(A) has continuously conducted such activity for a period of not less than three years, including at least one year after October 17, 1988; and(B) has otherwise complied with the provisions of this section 11 So in original. Probably should be followed by a comma.may petition the Commission for a certificate of self-regulation.(4) The Commission shall issue a certificate of self-regulation if it determines from available information, and after a hearing if requested by the tribe, that the tribe has—(A) conducted its gaming activity in a manner which—(i) has resulted in an effective and honest accounting of all revenues;(ii) has resulted in a reputation for safe, fair, and honest operation of the activity; and(iii) has been generally free of evidence of criminal or dishonest activity;(B) adopted and is implementing adequate systems for—(i) accounting for all revenues from the activity;(ii) investigation, licensing, and monitoring of all employees of the gaming activity; and(iii) investigation, enforcement and prosecution of violations of its gaming ordinance and regulations; and(C) conducted the operation on a fiscally and economically sound basis.(5) During any year in which a tribe has a certificate for self-regulation—(A) the tribe shall not be subject to the provisions of paragraphs (1), (2), (3), and (4) of section 2706(b) of this title;(B) the tribe shall continue to submit an annual independent audit as required by subsection (b)(2)(C) and shall submit to the Commission a complete resume on all employees hired and licensed by the tribe subsequent to the issuance of a certificate of self-regulation; and(C) the Commission may not assess a fee on such activity pursuant to section 2717 of this title in excess of one quarter of 1 per centum of the gross revenue.(6) The Commission may, for just cause and after an opportunity for a hearing, remove a certificate of self-regulation by majority vote of its members.(d) Class III gaming activities; authorization; revocation; Tribal-State compact(1) Class III gaming activities shall be lawful on Indian lands only if such activities are—(A) authorized by an ordinance or resolution that—(i) is adopted by the governing body of the Indian tribe having jurisdiction over such lands,(ii) meets the requirements of subsection (b), and(iii) is approved by the Chairman,(B) located in a State that permits such gaming for any purpose by any person, organization, or entity, and(C) conducted in conformance with a Tribal-State compact entered into by the Indian tribe and the State under paragraph (3) that is in effect.(2)(A) If any Indian tribe proposes to engage in, or to authorize any person or entity to engage in, a class III gaming activity on Indian lands of the Indian tribe, the governing body of the Indian tribe shall adopt and submit to the Chairman an ordinance or resolution that meets the requirements of subsection (b).(B) The Chairman shall approve any ordinance or resolution described in subparagraph (A), unless the Chairman specifically determines that—(i) the ordinance or resolution was not adopted in compliance with the governing documents of the Indian tribe, or(ii) the tribal governing body was significantly and unduly influenced in the adoption of such ordinance or resolution by any person identified in section 2711(e)(1)(D) of this title.Upon the approval of such an ordinance or resolution, the Chairman shall publish in the Federal Register such ordinance or resolution and the order of approval.(C) Effective with the publication under subparagraph (B) of an ordinance or resolution adopted by the governing body of an Indian tribe that has been approved by the Chairman under subparagraph (B), class III gaming activity on the Indian lands of the Indian tribe shall be fully subject to the terms and conditions of the Tribal-State compact entered into under paragraph (3) by the Indian tribe that is in effect.(D)(i) The governing body of an Indian tribe, in its sole discretion and without the approval of the Chairman, may adopt an ordinance or resolution revoking any prior ordinance or resolution that authorized class III gaming on the Indian lands of the Indian tribe. Such revocation shall render class III gaming illegal on the Indian lands of such Indian tribe.(ii) The Indian tribe shall submit any revocation ordinance or resolution described in clause (i) to the Chairman. The Chairman shall publish such ordinance or resolution in the Federal Register and the revocation provided by such ordinance or resolution shall take effect on the date of such publication.(iii) Notwithstanding any other provision of this subsection—(I) any person or entity operating a class III gaming activity pursuant to this paragraph on the date on which an ordinance or resolution described in clause (i) that revokes authorization for such class III gaming activity is published in the Federal Register may, during the 1-year period beginning on the date on which such revocation ordinance or resolution is published under clause (ii), continue to operate such activity in conformance with the Tribal-State compact entered into under paragraph (3) that is in effect, and(II) any civil action that arises before, and any crime that is committed before, the close of such 1-year period shall not be affected by such revocation ordinance or resolution.(3)(A) Any Indian tribe having jurisdiction over the Indian lands upon which a class III gaming activity is being conducted, or is to be conducted, shall request the State in which such lands are located to enter into negotiations for the purpose of entering into a Tribal-State compact governing the conduct of gaming activities. Upon receiving such a request, the State shall negotiate with the Indian tribe in good faith to enter into such a compact.(B) Any State and any Indian tribe may enter into a Tribal-State compact governing gaming activities on the Indian lands of the Indian tribe, but such compact shall take effect only when notice of approval by the Secretary of such compact has been published by the Secretary in the Federal Register.(C) Any Tribal-State compact negotiated under subparagraph (A) may include provisions relating to—(i) the application of the criminal and civil laws and regulations of the Indian tribe or the State that are directly related to, and necessary for, the licensing and regulation of such activity;(ii) the allocation of criminal and civil jurisdiction between the State and the Indian tribe necessary for the enforcement of such laws and regulations;(iii) the assessment by the State of such activities in such amounts as are necessary to defray the costs of regulating such activity;(iv) taxation by the Indian tribe of such activity in amounts comparable to amounts assessed by the State for comparable activities;(v) remedies for breach of contract;(vi) standards for the operation of such activity and maintenance of the gaming facility, including licensing; and(vii) any other subjects that are directly related to the operation of gaming activities.(4) Except for any assessments that may be agreed to under paragraph (3)(C)(iii) of this subsection, nothing in this section shall be interpreted as conferring upon a State or any of its political subdivisions authority to impose any tax, fee, charge, or other assessment upon an Indian tribe or upon any other person or entity authorized by an Indian tribe to engage in a class III activity. No State may refuse to enter into the negotiations described in paragraph (3)(A) based upon the lack of authority in such State, or its political subdivisions, to impose such a tax, fee, charge, or other assessment.(5) Nothing in this subsection shall impair the right of an Indian tribe to regulate class III gaming on its Indian lands concurrently with the State, except to the extent that such regulation is inconsistent with, or less stringent than, the State laws and regulations made applicable by any Tribal-State compact entered into by the Indian tribe under paragraph (3) that is in effect.(6) The provisions of section 1175 of title 15 shall not apply to any gaming conducted under a Tribal-State compact that—(A) is entered into under paragraph (3) by a State in which gambling devices are legal, and(B) is in effect.(7)(A) The United States district courts shall have jurisdiction over—(i) any cause of action initiated by an Indian tribe arising from the failure of a State to enter into negotiations with the Indian tribe for the purpose of entering into a Tribal-State compact under paragraph (3) or to conduct such negotiations in good faith,(ii) any cause of action initiated by a State or Indian tribe to enjoin a class III gaming activity located on Indian lands and conducted in violation of any Tribal-State compact entered into under paragraph (3) that is in effect, and(iii) any cause of action initiated by the Secretary to enforce the procedures prescribed under subparagraph (B)(vii).(B)(i) An Indian tribe may initiate a cause of action described in subparagraph (A)(i) only after the close of the 180-day period beginning on the date on which the Indian tribe requested the State to enter into negotiations under paragraph (3)(A).(ii) In any action described in subparagraph (A)(i), upon the introduction of evidence by an Indian tribe that—(I) a Tribal-State compact has not been entered into under paragraph (3), and(II) the State did not respond to the request of the Indian tribe to negotiate such a compact or did not respond to such request in good faith,the burden of proof shall be upon the State to prove that the State has negotiated with the Indian tribe in good faith to conclude a Tribal-State compact governing the conduct of gaming activities.(iii) If, in any action described in subparagraph (A)(i), the court finds that the State has failed to negotiate in good faith with the Indian tribe to conclude a Tribal-State compact governing the conduct of gaming activities, the court shall order the State and the Indian Tribe 22 So in original. Probably should not be capitalized. to conclude such a compact within a 60-day period. In determining in such an action whether a State has negotiated in good faith, the court—(I) may take into account the public interest, public safety, criminality, financial integrity, and adverse economic impacts on existing gaming activities, and(II) shall consider any demand by the State for direct taxation of the Indian tribe or of any Indian lands as evidence that the State has not negotiated in good faith.(iv) If a State and an Indian tribe fail to conclude a Tribal-State compact governing the conduct of gaming activities on the Indian lands subject to the jurisdiction of such Indian tribe within the 60-day period provided in the order of a court issued under clause (iii), the Indian tribe and the State shall each submit to a mediator appointed by the court a proposed compact that represents their last best offer for a compact. The mediator shall select from the two proposed compacts the one which best comports with the terms of this chapter and any other applicable Federal law and with the findings and order of the court.(v) The mediator appointed by the court under clause (iv) shall submit to the State and the Indian tribe the compact selected by the mediator under clause (iv).(vi) If a State consents to a proposed compact during the 60-day period beginning on the date on which the proposed compact is submitted by the mediator to the State under clause (v), the proposed compact shall be treated as a Tribal-State compact entered into under paragraph (3).(vii) If the State does not consent during the 60-day period described in clause (vi) to a proposed compact submitted by a mediator under clause (v), the mediator shall notify the Secretary and the Secretary shall prescribe, in consultation with the Indian tribe, procedures—(I) which are consistent with the proposed compact selected by the mediator under clause (iv), the provisions of this chapter, and the relevant provisions of the laws of the State, and(II) under which class III gaming may be conducted on the Indian lands over which the Indian tribe has jurisdiction.(8)(A) The Secretary is authorized to approve any Tribal-State compact entered into between an Indian tribe and a State governing gaming on Indian lands of such Indian tribe.(B) The Secretary may disapprove a compact described in subparagraph (A) only if such compact violates—(i) any provision of this chapter,(ii) any other provision of Federal law that does not relate to jurisdiction over gaming on Indian lands, or(iii) the trust obligations of the United States to Indians.(C) If the Secretary does not approve or disapprove a compact described in subparagraph (A) before the date that is 45 days after the date on which the compact is submitted to the Secretary for approval, the compact shall be considered to have been approved by the Secretary, but only to the extent the compact is consistent with the provisions of this chapter.(D) The Secretary shall publish in the Federal Register notice of any Tribal-State compact that is approved, or considered to have been approved, under this paragraph.(9) An Indian tribe may enter into a management contract for the operation of a class III gaming activity if such contract has been submitted to, and approved by, the Chairman. The Chairman’s review and approval of such contract shall be governed by the provisions of subsections (b), (c), (d), (f), (g), and (h) of section 2711 of this title.(e) Approval of ordinances

For purposes of this section, by not later than the date that is 90 days after the date on which any tribal gaming ordinance or resolution is submitted to the Chairman, the Chairman shall approve such ordinance or resolution if it meets the requirements of this section. Any such ordinance or resolution not acted upon at the end of that 90-day period shall be considered to have been approved by the Chairman, but only to the extent such ordinance or resolution is consistent with the provisions of this chapter.

(Pub. L. 100–497, § 11, Oct. 17, 1988, 102 Stat. 2472.)Editorial NotesReferences in Text

This chapter, referred to in subsecs. (a), (d)(7)(B)(iv), (vii)(I), (8)(B)(i), (C), and (e), 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.

Constitutionality

For information regarding the constitutionality of certain provisions of this section, see the Table of Laws Held Unconstitutional in Whole or in Part by the Supreme Court on the Constitution Annotated website, constitution.congress.gov.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 619 cases (71 in the last 5 years), 1989–2026 · leading case: Wisconsin v. Ho-Chunk Nation, 512 F.3d 921 (7th Cir. 2008).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Wisconsin v. Ho-Chunk Nation, 512 F.3d 921 (7th Cir. 2008). · cites it 70× “The State then filed an amended complaint in district court, this time including a claim to enjoin the Nation’s class III gaming due to alleged violations under the Compact pursuant to 25 U.S.C. § 2710 (d)(7)(A)(ii), one of the three provisions explicitly granting federal courts…”

Dalton v. Pataki, 835 N.E.2d 1180 (NY 2005). · cites it 61× “This type of gaming is solely within the jurisdiction of the tribes and is not subject to IGRA ( see 25 USC § 2710 [a] [1]). Class II gaming includes bingo, lotto and certain types of card gamesspecifically excluding banking card games such as baccarat ( see 25 USC § 2703 [7]…”

Saratoga Cnty. Chamber of Com., Inc. v. Pataki, 798 N.E.2d 1047 (NY 2003). · cites it 22× “[2] When a tribe requests that a compact be negotiated, a state is required to do so in good faith ( see 25 USC § 2710 [d] [3] [A]). The compact should resolve such matters as the applicability of state laws at the casinos, state taxation of gambling revenues, remedies for…”

Texas v. United States, 497 F.3d 491 (5th Cir. 2007). · cites it 29× “" 25 U.S.C. § 2710 (d)(1). In IGRA, Congress meticulously detailed two separate tracks leading to the institution of a Class III tribal gaming business.”

Stand up for California v. State of Cal., 6 Cal. App. 5th 686 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 60× “( 25 U.S.C. § 2710 (d)(1)(C).) In August 2012, the Governor announced that he had negotiated and signed a compact with North Fork for gaming on the 305-acre parcel and was forwarding the compact to the Legislature for ratification.”

Dairyland Greyhound Park, Inc. v. Doyle, 2006 WI 107 (Wis. 2006). · cites it 30× “1992), [13] and pursuant to the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, 25 U.S.C. § 2710 (d)(3)(c) (1988), [14] and Wis.”

Connecticut v. U.S. Dep't of the Interior, 344 F. Supp. 3d 279 (D.C. Cir. 2018). · cites it 27× “25 U.S.C. § 2710 (d)(1)(C). Typically, such authorization is secured through a negotiated agreement between the tribe and the state, a "tribal-state compact.”

New Mexico v. Dep't of the Interior, 854 F.3d 1207 (10th Cir. 2017). · cites it 16× “to enter into negotiations for the purpose of entering into a Tribal-State compact governing the conduct of gaming activities.”

Chicken Ranch Rancheria v. State of California, 42 F.4th 1024 (9th Cir. 2022). · cites it 22× “STATE OF CALIFORNIA 3 a State seeks to negotiate for compact provisions that fall well outside IGRA's seven permissible topics of negotiation, as set forth in an exhaustive list in 25 U.S.C. § 2710 (d)(3)(C), the State has not acted in good faith.”

Panzer v. Doyle, 2004 WI 52 (Wis. 2004). · cites it 18× “In addition, the Governor notes that the legislature has affirmed the governor's role in compact negotiations by creating a director of Indian gaming in the Department of Administration and providing that the director shall advise the governor "on any Indian compacts that may be…”

Pueblo of Pojoaque v. New Mexico, 233 F. Supp. 3d 1021 (D.N.M. 2017). · cites it 24× “See Complaint [Failure to Conclude Compact Negotiations in Good Faith, 25 U.S.C. § 2710 (d); Declaratory Judgment and Injunctive Relief; Violation of Civil Rights, 42 U.”

Artichoke Joe's v. Norton, 216 F. Supp. 2d 1084 (E.D. Cal. 2002). · cites it 18× “” 25 U.S.C. § 2710 (d)(1)(B). The court finds that this statutory language cannot reasonably be understood to condition class III Indian gaming on the state’s permission of class III gaming to all persons for any purpose.”

Show all 619 citing cases →

— 25 U.S.C. § 2710(a) — 1 case

West Flagler Assocs., Ltd. v. Haaland (D.D.C. 2021).

— 25 U.S.C. § 2710(d)(1) — 1 case

Question Submitted by: The Honorable Avery Frix, Oklahoma State Senate, Dist. 9, 2025 OK AG 7 (Okla. Att’y Gen. 2025).

— 25 U.S.C. § 2710(d)(1)(B) — 1 case

Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Cmty. v. Hull, 945 P.2d 818 (Ariz. 1997).

— 25 U.S.C. § 2710(d)(1)(C) — 1 case

Pueblo of Pojoaque v. New Mexico, 233 F. Supp. 3d 1021 (D.N.M. 2017). “See Complaint [Failure to Conclude Compact Negotiations in Good Faith, 25 U.S.C. § 2710 (d); Declaratory Judgment and Injunctive Relief; Violation of Civil Rights, 42 U.”

— 25 U.S.C. § 2710(d)(2)(C) — 1 case

Question Submitted by: The Honorable Avery Frix, Oklahoma State Senate, Dist. 9, 2025 OK AG 7 (Okla. Att’y Gen. 2025).

— 25 U.S.C. § 2710(d)(3)(A) — 1 case

O'Brien v. State, Agency of Nat. Resources (In Re O'Brien), 216 B.R. 731 (Bankr. D. Vt. 1998).

— 25 U.S.C. § 2710(d)(3)(B) — 3 cases

West Flagler Assocs., Ltd. v. Haaland (D.D.C. 2021).

Wichita & Affiliated Tribes v. Stitt (10th Cir. 2026).

Question Submitted by: The Honorable Avery Frix, Oklahoma State Senate, Dist. 9, 2025 OK AG 7 (Okla. Att’y Gen. 2025).

— 25 U.S.C. § 2710(d)(3)(C) — 1 case

Sheffer v. Buffalo Run Casino, PTE, Inc., 315 P.3d 359 (Okla. 2013).

— 25 U.S.C. § 2710(d)(8) — 2 cases

Sisseton-Wahpeton Sioux Tribe v. United States Dep't of Just., 718 F. Supp. 755 (D.S.D. 1989).

Question Submitted by: The Honorable Avery Frix, Oklahoma State Senate, Dist. 9, 2025 OK AG 7 (Okla. Att’y Gen. 2025).

— 25 U.S.C. § 2710(d)(8)(B) — 1 case

Question Submitted by: The Honorable Avery Frix, Oklahoma State Senate, Dist. 9, 2025 OK AG 7 (Okla. Att’y Gen. 2025).

— 25 U.S.C. § 2710(d)(8)(C) — 4 cases

Treat v. Stitt, 2020 OK 64 (Okla. 2020).

Treat v. Stitt, 2021 OK 3 (Okla. 2021).

West Flagler Assocs., Ltd. v. Haaland (D.D.C. 2021).

Question Submitted by: The Honorable Avery Frix, Oklahoma State Senate, Dist. 9, 2025 OK AG 7 (Okla. Att’y Gen. 2025).

— 25 U.S.C. § 2710(d)(9) — 1 case

Bremer Bus. Fin. Corp. v. Dorsey & Whitney LLP (In Re SRC Holding Corp.), 352 B.R. 103 (Bankr. D. Minn. 2006).

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.