Indian Gaming Regulatory Act Research Articles

Negotiating Enforceable Tribal Gaming Management Agreements

SINCE THE PASSAGE OF THE INDIAN GAMING REGULATORY ACT in 1988 (IGRA),1 a number of businesses (including tribes and tribal entities) have entered into casino management contracts with various Indian tribes. Many other individuals and entities continue to explore the business opportunities with tribal gaming operations, either as managers or consultants. Pursuant to the IGRA, all management contracts require approval by the National Indian Gaming Commission (NIGC) before such contracts are deemed valid and enforceable.2 Consulting agreements do not need the approval of the NIGC, although it is advisable to obtain a “declination” letter from the NIGC stating that the agreement does not constitute a management contract under the IGRA. The recent Catskill3 and Casino Magic4 court decisions (discussed below) have highlighted the importance of obtaining a declination letter to assure enforceability of a non-management agreement and other documents that may be “collateral” to a management agreement.5 This article will outline the requirements for seeking to obtain enforceable agreements with tribal casinos and recent case law interpreting the relevant regulations. NIGC APPROVAL PROCESS FOR MANAGEMENT CONTRACTS

Indian Gaming, Tribal Sovereignty, and American Indian Tribes as Complex Adaptive Systems

The A. introduces complexity theory as a new conceptual approach to research in American Indian studies and, specifically, to gaming in Indian Country. Casinos may look like a good thing for Indian reservations. They can support economic development, tribal web pages, and the revitalization of tribal languages, arts, and community organizations. Less discussed, however, is the fact that a casino can also spawn major and irreversible changes in tribal communities. It can change the physical boundaries of a reservation through the acquisition of land and alter the membership of a tribe by redefining tribal roles for the purposes of distributing gaming receipts. An initial look at tribal responses to the 1988 Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) through the prism of complexity theory suggests that Indian gaming holds within it the potential to both strengthen and weaken American Indian tribes and tribal sovereignty.

Indian Gaming: Financial and Regulatory Issues

For 124 Indian tribes, casino gaming has become an important source of revenue as a result of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) of 1988. This article reviews the judicial and legislative history of Indian gaming. Second, it examines regulation and oversight of Indian gaming. Next, it provides examples of the uses of gaming revenue. Then it considers the positive and negative impacts of casinos on Indian communities, local businesses, and states. Finally, it discusses the conflict over the sovereignty of Indian tribes as it relates to amending IGRA.

Tribes and States: A New Era in Intergovernmental Affairs

The history of tribal-state conflict and the role of the federal government is nearly two centuries old. In recent years, the most contentious source of conflict between American Indian tribes and states has been Indian gaming. The Congress attempted to compromise and resolve the issue by passing the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) in 1988, but the law has only exacerbated and opened up new avenues of conflict. The scope and stakes of Indian gaming can be seen in the history of Indian gaming in New Mexico where the defects in IGRA have been readily apparent. As Indian gaming has grown, so have efforts to curtail it and other aspects of tribal sovereignty, including tribal sovereign immunity. These efforts are currently underway in the Congress.

Federal control of Indian Lands v. State control of Gaming ? Cabazon Bingo and the Indian Gaming regulatory act

In September, 1988, the 100th Congress passed the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, concluding five years of debate over the Indian Gaming issue - brought to a head by a Supreme Court decision in February, 1987, that barred states from regulating Indian Gaming. That case (State of California v. Cabazon Band of Mission Indians) forced the legislature to take a serious look at issues of gaming on Indian lands. The result was the creation of a three-tiered system whereby tribes will control ceremonial games, the federal government will control bingo, and the states and tribes will negotiate agreements to cover casino games, parimutuel racing, and jai alai, if such games are legal in that particular state. In light of the case of the Cabazon Indians and the passage of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, this paper will address the following competing issues: tribal sovereignty, state interests, federal interests, and states like Nevada, which have a regulated gaming industry.