Wilson

Chemehuevi Indian Tribe v. Wilson

Good Law
987 F. Supp. 804·1997 WL 769275·1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20756
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaNovember 24, 1997C97-01478 BZCalifornia3,550 words

Opinion

Opinion

Zimmerman, J.

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

This case presents the difficult question of what remedy exists for an Indian tribe confronted with a state that the tribe believes is not honoring the tribe’s rights under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, now that the Supreme Court has eliminated the remedy Congress provided. For the reasons explained below, I conclude that the remedy sought by the plaintiff Tribes — a judgment that the United States should sue the State of California on their behalf — is available.

In 1987, the United States Supreme Court held that a state was not authorized to impose its civil laws regulating gaming on Indian reservations within that state. California v. Cabazon Band of Mission Indians, 480 U.S. 202, 209 , 107 S.Ct. 1083, 1088 , 94 L.Ed.2d 244 (1987). In the absence of clear federal regulation, Cabazon left Indian gaming largely unregulated.

In response, Congress enacted the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (“IGRA”), 25 U.S.C § 2701 et seq., in part to provide a uniform national standard governing the operation of gaming facilities on Indian lands. 25 U.S.C. § 2702 (3). Its purpose in enacting IGRA, Congress found, was to advance “a…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.