Flynt

Flynt v. California Gambling Control Commission

Good Law
104 Cal. App. 4th 1125·129 Cal. Rptr. 2d 167·2002 Cal. App. LEXIS 5233·2002 Daily Journal DAR 14645·2002 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 12434
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaDecember 26, 2002A098186California8,258 words

Opinion

Opinion

Ruvolo, J.

I.

In March 2000, the overwhelming majority of California voters passed Proposition 1A, which amended the California Constitution, giving the Governor the authority “to negotiate and conclude compacts, subject to ratification by the Legislature, for.the operation of slot machines and for the conduct of lottery games and banking games by federally recognized Indian tribes on Indian lands in California in accordance with federal law.” (Cal. Const., art. IV, § 19, subd. (f).)

Larry Flynt, a card room owner, and Hustler Casino and Normandie Casino, state-licensed card rooms located in Los Angeles (collectively appellants), challenge the legality of agreements entered into by the State of California with 62 Native American Indian (Indian) tribes pursuant to Proposition 1A. Specifically, appellants claim that the tribal-state gambling agreements, known as compacts, which permit Indian tribes to conduct gaming prohibited to appellants and others by state law, violate the federal Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) ( 25 U.S.C. § 2701 et seq.) and infringe upon appellants’ right to equal protection of the laws (U.S. Const., 14th Amend.; Cal. Const., art. I, § 7, subd. (a).) They…

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.