United States v. 103 Electronic Gambling Devices

Good Law
2000 Daily Journal DAR 9627·223 F.3d 1091·2000 WL 1218766·2000 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7261·2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 22025
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitAugust 29, 2000No. 99-15675California5,969 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Berzon, J.

This case poses the question, what is bingo? Cf. Frigaliment Importing Co. v. B.N.S. Int’l Sales Corp., 190 F.Supp. 116, 117 (S.D.N.Y.1960) (Friendly, J., sitting by designation) (“The issue is, what is chicken?”). In particular, we determine whether an electronic game called MegaMania, manufactured and sold by Appellee Multimedia Games, Inc. (“Multimedia”), is “bingo” as that term is defined in the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (“IGRA”), 25 U.S.C. §§ 2701-2721 .

Appellant the United States thinks not. The Government claims that the terminals on which MegaMania is played are “gambling devices” within the meaning of the Johnson Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1171-1178 . The Johnson Act prohibits the possession and operation of any “gambling device , as defined in the Act, id. § 1171(a), on Indian land, see id. § 1175(a), unless authorized by a tribal-state compact, see 25 U.S.C. § 2710 (d)(6). Invoking the Johnson Act, the Government brought this forfeiture action against, inter alia, some twenty-odd MegaMania game terminals located at the Red Fox Casino, an Indian gaming facility in Northern California.

Under IGRA, however, bingo and electronic aids thereto are generally permissible in Indian…

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.