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

25 U.S.C. § 2713

Civil penalties

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 25 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) Authority; amount; appeal; written complaint(1) Subject to such regulations as may be prescribed by the Commission, the Chairman shall have authority to levy and collect appropriate civil fines, not to exceed $25,000 per violation, against the tribal operator of an Indian game or a management contractor engaged in gaming for any violation of any provision of this chapter, any regulation prescribed by the Commission pursuant to this chapter, or tribal regulations, ordinances, or resolutions approved under section 2710 or 2712 of this title.(2) The Commission shall, by regulation, provide an opportunity for an appeal and hearing before the Commission on fines levied and collected by the Chairman.(3) Whenever the Commission has reason to believe that the tribal operator of an Indian game or a management contractor is engaged in activities regulated by this chapter, by regulations prescribed under this chapter, or by tribal regulations, ordinances, or resolutions, approved under section 2710 or 2712 of this title, that may result in the imposition of a fine under subsection (a)(1), the permanent closure of such game, or the modification or termination of any management contract, the Commission shall provide such tribal operator or management contractor with a written complaint stating the acts or omissions which form the basis for such belief and the action or choice of action being considered by the Commission. The allegation shall be set forth in common and concise language and must specify the statutory or regulatory provisions alleged to have been violated, but may not consist merely of allegations stated in statutory or regulatory language.(b) Temporary closure; hearing(1) The Chairman shall have power to order temporary closure of an Indian game for substantial violation of the provisions of this chapter, of regulations prescribed by the Commission pursuant to this chapter, or of tribal regulations, ordinances, or resolutions approved under section 2710 or 2712 of this title.(2) Not later than thirty days after the issuance by the Chairman of an order of temporary closure, the Indian tribe or management contractor involved shall have a right to a hearing before the Commission to determine whether such order should be made permanent or dissolved. Not later than sixty days following such hearing, the Commission shall, by a vote of not less than two of its members, decide whether to order a permanent closure of the gaming operation.(c) Appeal from final decision

A decision of the Commission to give final approval of a fine levied by the Chairman or to order a permanent closure pursuant to this section shall be appealable to the appropriate Federal district court pursuant to chapter 7 of title 5.

(d) Regulatory authority under tribal law

Nothing in this chapter precludes an Indian tribe from exercising regulatory authority provided under tribal law over a gaming establishment within the Indian tribe’s jurisdiction if such regulation is not inconsistent with this chapter or with any rules or regulations adopted by the Commission.

(Pub. L. 100–497, § 14, Oct. 17, 1988, 102 Stat. 2482.)Editorial NotesReferences in Text

This chapter, referred to in subsecs. (a)(1), (3), (b)(1), and (d), 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.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 51 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1991–2025 · leading case: In Re: Sac & Fox Tribe of the Mississippi in Iowa / Meskwaki Casino Litig., 340 F.3d 749 (8th Cir. 2003).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In Re: Sac & Fox Tribe of the Mississippi in Iowa / Meskwaki Casino Litig., 340 F.3d 749 (8th Cir. 2003). · cites it 10× “The Appointed Council did not file an appeal to the NIGC within the 30 day window provided under 25 U.S.C. § 2713 (b)(2). On July 10, the Elected Council completed briefing on its administrative appeal.”
United States v. Seminole Nation of Oklahoma, 321 F.3d 939 (10th Cir. 2002). · cites it 5× “25 U.S.C. § 2713 (b)(2) (providing an Indian tribe with the right to a hearing before the Commission to review a temporary closure order within thirty days of its issuance and requiring the Commission to decide whether to dissolve the order or issue a permanent closure order…”
Saratoga Cnty. Chamber of Com., Inc. v. Pataki, 798 N.E.2d 1047 (NY 2003). · cites it 2× “The National Indian Gaming Commission has enforcement authority for IGRA, and can take action ranging from monetary penalties to forced closure of a casino where a tribe is in "substantial violation" of the statute ( 25 USC § 2713 ). The Commission did precisely this in United…”
United States v. Santee Sioux Tribe of Nebraska, a Federally Recognized Indian Tribe, 135 F.3d 558 (8th Cir. 1998). · cites it 4× “The District Court reasoned that any civil remedy available under the IGRA for violations of the Chairman’s closure order was limited to the imposition of fines by the Chairman under 25 U.S.C. § 2713 (a), and that the government was empowered under the IGRA to seek only criminal…”
Artichoke Joe's v. Norton, 216 F. Supp. 2d 1084 (E.D. Cal. 2002). · cites it 2× “§ 2711 (d) (authorizing tribal suit to compel Chairman of the NIGC either to approve or to disapprove management contract); 25 U.S.C. § 2713 (a)(2), (b)(2) (creating right to hearing before NIGC regarding fine imposed or temporary closure ordered by Chairman); 25 U.”
North Cnty. Cmty. All., Inc. v. Salazar, 573 F.3d 738 (9th Cir. 2009). · cites it 2× “Under 25 U.S.C. § 2713 (b)(1) and (2), the NIGC has the authority to order a closure of "an Indian game for substantial violation of the provisions of this chapter.”
Bettor Racing, Inc. v. Nat'l Indian Gaming Comm'n, 47 F. Supp. 3d 912 (D.S.D. 2014). · cites it 9× “25 U.S.C. § 2713 (a)(1); United States v.”
State of Oklahoma v. Hobia, 775 F.3d 1204 (10th Cir. 2014). · cites it 4× “The letter stated that if gaming was commenced by the Tribe on the Property, the chairwoman would exercise her enforcement authority under 25 U.S.C. § 2713 to issue a notice of violation and temporary closure order.”
Cheyenne-Arapaho Gaming Comm'n v. Nat'l Indian Gaming Comm'n, 214 F. Supp. 2d 1155 (N.D. Okla. 2002). · cites it 3× “The IGRA contains an enforcement procedure as set forth in 25 U.S.C. § 2713 . When the NIGC finds that the tribal operator of gaming is failing to comply with statutory and regulatory guidelines, the chairman issues a Notice of Violation (“NOV”) to the tribal operator.”
Florida v. Seminole Tribe of Florida, 181 F.3d 1237 (11th Cir. 1999). · cites it 3× “See 25 U.S.C. § 2713 (1994). 3. Finally, the State seeks to avoid the bar of tribal sovereign immunity by arguing that the Tribe’s immunity does not necessarily extend to this action for prospective equitable relief.”
Sas & Fox Tribe of Mississippi in Iowa v. United States, 264 F. Supp. 2d 830 (N.D. Iowa 2003). · cites it 6× “The enforcement procedure is set forth in 25 U.S.C. § 2713 . Under section 2713(a), when the NIGC determines that the tribal operator of gaming is engaged in gaming in violation of the statute, any regulations or any tribal ordinance, regulation or resolution approved by the…”
State of Alabama v. PCI Gaming Auth., 801 F.3d 1278 (11th Cir. 2015). “3d at 1248 (citing 25 U.S.C. § 2713 ). Second, a state may sue in federal court when a tribe violates the terms of a tribal-state compact by conducting class III gaming that is not permitted by the compact.”
Show all 51 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.