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

25 U.S.C. § 2719

Gaming on lands acquired after October 17, 1988

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 25 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) Prohibition on lands acquired in trust by SecretaryExcept as provided in subsection (b), gaming regulated by this chapter shall not be conducted on lands acquired by the Secretary in trust for the benefit of an Indian tribe after October 17, 1988, unless—(1) such lands are located within or contiguous to the boundaries of the reservation of the Indian tribe on October 17, 1988; or(2) the Indian tribe has no reservation on October 17, 1988, and—(A) such lands are located in Oklahoma and—(i) are within the boundaries of the Indian tribe’s former reservation, as defined by the Secretary, or(ii) are contiguous to other land held in trust or restricted status by the United States for the Indian tribe in Oklahoma; or(B) such lands are located in a State other than Oklahoma and are within the Indian tribe’s last recognized reservation within the State or States within which such Indian tribe is presently located.(b) Exceptions(1) Subsection (a) will not apply when—(A) the Secretary, after consultation with the Indian tribe and appropriate State and local officials, including officials of other nearby Indian tribes, determines that a gaming establishment on newly acquired lands would be in the best interest of the Indian tribe and its members, and would not be detrimental to the surrounding community, but only if the Governor of the State in which the gaming activity is to be conducted concurs in the Secretary’s determination; or(B) lands are taken into trust as part of—(i) a settlement of a land claim,(ii) the initial reservation of an Indian tribe acknowledged by the Secretary under the Federal acknowledgment process, or(iii) the restoration of lands for an Indian tribe that is restored to Federal recognition.(2) Subsection (a) shall not apply to—(A) any lands involved in the trust petition of the St. Croix Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin that is the subject of the action filed in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia entitled St. Croix Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin v. United States, Civ. No. 86–2278, or(B) the interests of the Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida in approximately 25 contiguous acres of land, more or less, in Dade County, Florida, located within one mile of the intersection of State Road Numbered 27 (also known as Krome Avenue) and the Tamiami Trail.(3) Upon request of the governing body of the Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida, the Secretary shall, notwithstanding any other provision of law, accept the transfer by such Tribe to the Secretary of the interests of such Tribe in the lands described in paragraph (2)(B) and the Secretary shall declare that such interests are held in trust by the Secretary for the benefit of such Tribe and that such interests are part of the reservation of such Tribe under sections 5108 and 5110 of this title, subject to any encumbrances and rights that are held at the time of such transfer by any person or entity other than such Tribe. The Secretary shall publish in the Federal Register the legal description of any lands that are declared held in trust by the Secretary under this paragraph.(c) Authority of Secretary not affected

Nothing in this section shall affect or diminish the authority and responsibility of the Secretary to take land into trust.

(d) Application of title 26(1) The provisions of title 26 (including sections 1441, 3402(q), 6041, and 6050I, and chapter 35 of such title) concerning the reporting and withholding of taxes with respect to the winnings from gaming or wagering operations shall apply to Indian gaming operations conducted pursuant to this chapter, or under a Tribal-State compact entered into under section 2710(d)(3) of this title that is in effect, in the same manner as such provisions apply to State gaming and wagering operations.(2) The provisions of this subsection shall apply notwithstanding any other provision of law enacted before, on, or after October 17, 1988, unless such other provision of law specifically cites this subsection.(Pub. L. 100–497, § 20, Oct. 17, 1988, 102 Stat. 2485.)Editorial NotesReferences in Text

This chapter, referred to in subsecs. (a) and (d)(1), 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 164 cases (18 in the last 5 years), 1992–2025 · leading case: Stand up for California v. State of Cal.
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Stand up for California v. State of Cal. (2016) calctapp · cites it 61× “( 25 U.S.C. § 2719 (b)(1).) Class III gaming is the type of gambling practiced in casinos in Nevada.”
Koi Nation of N. Cal. v. U.S. Dep't of the Interior (2019) cadc · cites it 20× “The Koi Nation initiated this lawsuit to challenge DOI's decision, on January 19, 2017, to deny the tribe's eligibility for the IGRA exception, known as the "restored lands exception," 25 U.S.C. § 2719 (b)(1)(B)(iii), as violative of the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA"), 5 U.”
Dalton v. Pataki (2005) ny · cites it 14× “With a few exceptions, gaming is generally prohibited on lands acquired by the Secretary of the Interior after the enactment of IGRA and held "in trust for the benefit of an Indian tribe" ( 25 USC § 2719 [a]). Gaming, however, will be permitted when "the Secretary, after…”
Chickasaw Nation v. United States (2001) scotus · cites it 6× “I The relevant Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (Gaming Act) subsection, as codified in 25 U. S. C. § 2719 (d)(1), reads as follows: *87 "The provisions of [the Internal Revenue Code of 1986] (including sections 1441, 3402(q), 6041, and 6050I, and chapter 35 of such [Code])…”
Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa & Chippewa Indians v. United States Attorney for the Western District of Michigan (2002) miwd · cites it 16× “For the reasons that follow, the court finds that the Turtle Creek site falls within the restored-lands exception of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (“IGRA”), 25 U.S.C. § 2719 (b)(l)(B)(iii), and is therefore legal.”
State of Arizona v. Tohono O'Odham Nation (2016) ca9 · cites it 6× “§ 2703 (4)(A) and (B), 2 subject to the provisions of 25 U.S.C. § 2719 .” In turn, § 2719 of IGRA provides that although Class III gaming is generally barred on land taken into trust after IGRA’s effective date (October 17, 1988), that bar does not apply to land “taken into…”
Cachil Dehe Band of Wintun v. Ryan Zinke (2018) ca9 · cites it 8× “The panel also held that the Secretary’s finding that the proposed casino project would not be “detrimental to the surrounding community,” 25 U.S.C. § 2719 (b)(1)(A), was not arbitrary and capricious.”
McGirt v. Oklahoma (2020) scotus · cites it 2× “25 U. S. C. §2719 (a)(2)(A)(i) (emphasis added) (Indian Gaming Cite as: 591 U.”
Sac & Fox Nation of Missouri v. Norton (2001) ca10 · cites it 5× “” 25 U.S.C. § 2719 (a). One exception allows gaming on trust lands acquired by the Secretary after October 17, 1988, if the “lands are located within or contiguous to the boundaries of the reservation of the Indian tribe on October 17, 1988.”
TOMAC v. Norton, Gale A. (2006) cadc · cites it 5× “See 25 U.S.C. § 2719 (b)(1)(A), (B). The Tribe subsequently purchased in fee 26 separate and contiguous parcels of land across 675 acres within New Buffalo Town *857 ship in Berrien County, Michigan, and then submitted an application to BIA requesting that the United States take…”
Citizens Exposing Truth About Casinos v. Kempthorne (2007) cadc · cites it 7× “” 25 U.S.C. § 2719 (b)(1)(A). B. The Band is a descendent of the Potawa-tomi Tribe of Huron, Michigan, which signed treaties with the United States from 1795 through 1833.”
Nebraska Ex Rel. Bruning v. United States Department of Interior (2010) ca8 · cites it 16× “om the district court's judgment reversing and vacating the NIGC's decision concluding that the Ponca Tribe of Nebraska's ("the Tribe") five-acre parcel in Carter Lake, Iowa, was eligible for gaming under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) as land taken into trust as part…”
Show all 164 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.