Lexplug logoLexplug

Sycuan Band of Mission Indians v. Roache

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
54 F.3d 535 (1994)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) grants the United States exclusive jurisdiction to criminally prosecute violations of state gambling laws on Indian lands, thereby preempting any pre-existing state authority under statutes like Public Law 280, unless a tribe consents to state jurisdiction through a Tribal-State compact.


Facts:

  • The Barona, Sycuan, and Viejas Bands of Mission Indians operated gaming centers on their reservations in San Diego County, California.
  • These gaming centers utilized electronic video 'pull-tab' machines.
  • Edwin L. Miller, the District Attorney of San Diego County, determined that these gaming operations violated California state law.
  • Based on search warrants, San Diego County sheriff's deputies raided the tribes' gaming centers.
  • During the raids, deputies seized gaming machines, cash, and records.
  • Following the raids, District Attorney Miller initiated criminal prosecutions against four individuals employed in the Bands' gaming centers.

Procedural Posture:

  • The Barona, Sycuan, and Viejas Bands of Mission Indians sued District Attorney Miller in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, seeking an injunction against state criminal prosecutions of their employees.
  • The district court granted the injunction, ruling that IGRA precluded state jurisdiction over the gaming activities.
  • The district court also ruled that the Sycuan Band's video pull-tab machines were Class III gaming devices that were being operated illegally without a Tribal-State compact.
  • The State of California (appellant) appealed the district court's injunction to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
  • The Sycuan Band (cross-appellant) appealed the district court's classification of its video pull-tab machines as Class III devices to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

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 the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) grant the federal government exclusive jurisdiction to prosecute violations of state gambling laws on Indian reservations, thereby precluding a state from bringing such prosecutions under its own authority?


Opinions:

Majority - Canby, Circuit Judge

Yes. The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) vests exclusive jurisdiction in the federal government to prosecute state gambling law violations on tribal lands, preventing state enforcement actions. The court's reasoning is twofold. First, IGRA, specifically 18 U.S.C. § 1166(d), explicitly states that '[t]he United States shall have exclusive jurisdiction' over such criminal prosecutions unless a Tribal-State compact transfers that authority to the state, which had not occurred here. Second, the State's claim of pre-existing jurisdiction under Public Law 280 is invalid. Citing California v. Cabazon Band of Mission Indians, the court found that California's laws are 'regulatory' rather than 'prohibitory' regarding gambling, as the state permits significant gambling activities like a state lottery. Therefore, Public Law 280 did not grant the State criminal jurisdiction over the tribes' gaming. Even if the state laws were prohibitory and applicable to Class III gaming, IGRA's specific and later-enacted grant of exclusive federal jurisdiction impliedly repeals any conflicting authority under Public Law 280. On the cross-appeal, the court affirmed that the video pull-tab machines are 'electronic facsimiles' of a game of chance, not mere 'electronic aids,' classifying them as Class III gaming that requires a Tribal-State compact for legal operation.



Analysis:

This decision solidifies the jurisdictional framework established by IGRA, affirming that the federal government holds the exclusive power to enforce state criminal gambling laws on Indian lands. It significantly curtails the authority of 'Public Law 280 states' like California, clarifying that IGRA supersedes their prior jurisdictional grants in the specific context of gaming. The ruling reinforces tribal sovereignty by protecting tribal gaming operations from state-level interference, forcing states to negotiate compacts rather than resort to unilateral law enforcement. The court's distinction between 'electronic aids' (Class II) and 'electronic facsimiles' (Class III) also sets an important precedent for classifying new gaming technologies, pushing more advanced, self-contained machines into the more restrictive Class III category, thereby strengthening the role of Tribal-State compacts in regulating modern Indian gaming.

🤖 Gunnerbot:
Query Sycuan Band of Mission Indians v. Roache (1994) directly. You can ask questions about any aspect of the case. If it's in the case, Gunnerbot will know.
Locked
Subscribe to Lexplug to chat with the Gunnerbot about this case.

Unlock the full brief for Sycuan Band of Mission Indians v. Roache