Wilson
Rumsey Indian Rancheria of Wintun Indians v. Wilson
Opinion
Lead Opinion
Scannlain, J.
We decide whether certain gaming activities are permitted under California law and *424 thus subject to tribal-state negotiation under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act.
I
Numerous federally recognized Indian tribes currently engage in various gaming activities on tribal lands in California. Desiring to engage in additional activities (the “Proposed Gaming Activities”), several tribes asked the State of California (the “State”) to negotiate a compact permitting the operation of certain stand-alone electronic gaming devices 1 and live banking and percentage card games. 2 The State refused to negotiate with the tribes, asserting that the Proposed Gaming Activities were illegal under California law.
The State and seven tribes subsequently entered into a stipulation to seek judicial determination of whether the State was obligated to negotiate with the tribes.' These tribes filed a complaint for declaratory judgment with the district court under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (“IGRA”), 25 §§ U.S.C. 2701-2721. Four other complaints, filed by different Indian tribes, were consolidated with this action (plaintiffs collectively referred to as the “Tribes”).
The parties filed…
Concurring Opinion
Wallace, J.
concurring:
I concur with parts I and II of this opinion. However, I concur only in the result of part III, because the discussion of the legislative history of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (Act) is unnecessary. Having concluded that the plain language of the Act controls this case, our opinion should end. The discussion of the Act’s legislative history gives the impression that the Act is not as clear as we say, and that some additional reason is required before we hold as we do. “Where we are not prepared to be governed by what the legislative history says — to take, as it were, the bad with the good — we should not look to the legislative history at all. This text is eminently clear, and we should leave it at that.” United States v. Taylor, 487 U.S. 326, 345 , 108 S.Ct. 2413, 2424 , 101 L.Ed.2d 297 (1988) (Scalia, J., concurring).