Racicot

Crow Tribe of Indians v. Racicot

Good Law
87 F.3d 1039·96 Daily Journal DAR 6885·1996 WL 325836·1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 14517·96 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4264
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJune 14, 1996No. 95-35407California3,138 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Choy, J.

This appeal presents a dispute between the Crow Tribe and the State of Montana over the use of mechanical slot machines on the Crow Indian Reservation. The district court granted summary judgment against the Crow Tribe’s claim that the Tribe may operate mechanical slot machines on their Reservation. We affirm.

Statement of the Case

The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988 (“IGRA”), 25 U.S.C. §§ 2701-2721 , provides a comprehensive framework for regulating gaming on Indian land. The IGRA divides Indian gaming into three classes, each subject to varying degrees of tribal, state and federal regulation. Class I gaming is defined as social games for prizes of minimal value, and traditional forms of Indian gaming conducted as part of tribal ceremonies and celebrations. § 2703(6). Class I gaming is within the exclusive jurisdiction of Indian tribes and is not subject to state or federal regulation. § 2710(a)(1). Class II gaming includes bingo and related games. § 2703(7). Class II gaming is within the exclusive jurisdiction of Indian tribes subject only to federal oversight. § 2710(a)(2). Class III gaming, the type of gaming at issue in this appeal, “means all forms of gaming that are…

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.