Lexplug logoLexplug

California v. Cabazon Band of Mission Indians

Supreme Court of the United States
480 U.S. 202, 94 L. Ed. 2d 244, 1987 U.S. LEXIS 935 (1987)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

If a state's law generally permits a certain conduct subject to regulation, it is classified as "civil-regulatory" and cannot be enforced on an Indian reservation under Public Law 280. State regulation of tribal activities is also preempted if it interferes with strong federal and tribal interests in self-government and economic development, unless the state's asserted interests are sufficient to justify the intrusion.


Facts:

  • The Cabazon and Morongo Bands of Mission Indians are federally recognized tribes located on reservations in Riverside County, California.
  • Pursuant to tribal ordinances approved by the Secretary of the Interior, the Tribes began operating high-stakes bingo games on their reservations.
  • The Cabazon Band also opened a card club where draw poker and other card games were played.
  • The games were open to the public, primarily patronized by non-Indians, and served as the Tribes' sole source of income and a major source of employment for tribal members.
  • California state law did not prohibit bingo entirely but permitted it only when operated by specific charitable organizations.
  • The state law imposed several restrictions, including that games be staffed by unpaid members, prizes be limited to $250, and profits be used only for charitable purposes.
  • The Tribes' gaming operations did not comply with these state-imposed restrictions.
  • Riverside County also had ordinances regulating bingo and prohibiting the card games offered by the Cabazon Band.

Procedural Posture:

  • The Cabazon and Morongo Bands of Mission Indians sued Riverside County in U.S. District Court, seeking a declaratory judgment and an injunction against the enforcement of local gambling ordinances on their reservations.
  • The State of California intervened as a defendant to enforce its state gambling laws.
  • The U.S. District Court granted summary judgment in favor of the Tribes.
  • California and Riverside County, as appellants, appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
  • The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment in favor of the Tribes, the appellees.
  • California and Riverside County then appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does Public Law 280 grant a state the authority to enforce its statute governing the operation of bingo games on Indian reservations when the state law permits such gaming for certain purposes?


Opinions:

Majority - Justice White

No. Public Law 280 does not grant states authority to enforce civil-regulatory laws on Indian reservations, and a state's gambling law is regulatory if the state's public policy is not to wholly prohibit the conduct. Because California permits substantial gambling activity, including a state lottery and parimutuel horse racing, its laws governing bingo are regulatory in nature, not criminal-prohibitory, and thus cannot be enforced on the reservations. Furthermore, state jurisdiction is preempted by federal law under a balancing of interests. The compelling federal and tribal interests in promoting tribal self-sufficiency and economic development outweigh California's asserted interest in preventing the infiltration of organized crime, especially absent any evidence of such infiltration.


Dissenting - Justice Stevens

Yes. Public Law 280's plain language gives California's criminal laws force on Indian reservations, and the state's laws prohibiting high-stakes, for-profit commercial bingo are criminal-prohibitory, not merely regulatory. The majority's public policy analysis is flawed; California's policy is to prohibit all unregulated commercial lotteries operated for private profit. To argue that because some regulated gambling is permitted, any form of gambling is consistent with public policy is akin to arguing that because driving 55 mph is legal, driving over 60 mph is also consistent with public policy. The State has a legitimate economic and protective interest in regulating these games and preventing the infiltration of organized crime.



Analysis:

This decision established the seminal 'prohibitory/regulatory' distinction for determining the reach of state law on tribal lands under Public Law 280, significantly bolstering tribal sovereignty. By protecting tribal gaming from state regulation in states that did not completely ban gambling, the Court created the legal foundation for the modern Indian gaming industry. This ruling directly prompted Congress to enact the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) in 1988, which codified the case's core principles while creating a comprehensive federal framework for regulating tribal casinos and requiring states to negotiate gaming compacts in good faith.

G

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: California v. Cabazon Band of Mission Indians (1987)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"