Tribal-State compacts

Tribal-State Compacts are declared necessary for any Class III gaming on reservations under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988 (IGRA). They were designed to allow tribal and state governments to come to a "business" agreement. A compact can be thought of as "negotiated agreement between two political entities that resolves questions of overlapping jurisdictional responsibilities [Witmer, Corntassel. Forced Federalism: Contemporary Challenges to Indigenous Nationhood. Volume 3 of American Indian Law and Policy Series. University of Oklahoma Press, 2006 (110-111).] It is important to note that compacts affect the delicate power balance between states, federal, and tribal governments. Thus, it is understandable that the IGRA provides very detailed instructions for how states and tribes can make compacts cooperatively and also details the instructions for how the federal government can regulate such agreements. [Haugen, David M. Legalized Gambling. New York: Infobase Publishing, 2006 (235).]

The IGRA of 1988 and Tribal-State Compacts

In section 3A of this act includes specific instructions for the process of developing a tribal-state compact. Tribes are expected to request a compact with states if they should desire to have Class III gaming (States have no jurisdiction over Class I and II gambling). Following such a request, states are required to enter negotiations and deal with the tribes in "good faith". The original text of the act implied that if states tried to "stone-wall" tribal gambling, the tribes could look to the federal courts for support [Haugen, David M. Legalized Gambling. New York: Infobase Publishing, 2006. (44-45)] But while the IGRA is giving states unprecedented influence on tribal economic concerns, it also seeks to maintain the federal government as the "guardian" of the tribes. Accordingly, section 3B maintains the power of the federal government in this aspect. No compact will be valid until the Secretary of the Interior has entered the compact into the Federal registry. Also, tribes who feel that a state is not negotiating in "good faith" have the right to sue the states in federal court.
The topics that compacts may cover include provisions relating to criminal/civil laws of the tribe or state in relation to the gambling activity, the allocation of court jurisdiction between the State and Indian tribe necessary to enforce these laws, money the State should receive to defray the costs of regulating the gambling, and any other such subjects directly related to the operation of gaming activities. It also specifies that Indian tribe shall have the right to regulate gaming concurrently with the state, unless some aspect of the compact is broken.
The text of the IGRA takes specific notice of the fact that the text is not "conferring upon a State or any of its political subdivisions the authority to impose any taxes, fee, charge, or other assessment upon a Indian tribe. This reference indicates that the Congress realized it was not following the norm of trbial governments operating independently of states. [Haugen, David M. Legalized Gambling. New York: Infobase Publishing, 2006. (235-237)]

Federal Activity Affecting IGRA

The compacts between states and tribes have caused a great deal of controversy and the original definition of Tribal-State Compacts has been redefined by several court cases and congressional acts. This section will address the more prominent actions that have refined the methods of establishing Tribal-State compacts.

eminole Tribe v Florida (1996)

In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that tribes did not have the authority to sue states in federal courts. The court cited the Eleventh amendment- which grants states immunity from lawsuits put forth by states or citizens or subjects of other states- to declare that Congress lacked the power to abrogate this immunity under the IGRA. [Canby, William C. American Indian Law in a Nutshell. St. Paul, MN: West, 2004.(314)] This case essentially put Native Americans at the mercy of states when it came to bringing about a compact for Class III gambling. It also gave state's the ability to take advantage of tribes and hold out for compacts that give very large percentages of the earnings of any gambling ventures. [Ashley, Jeffrey S, and Secody J Hubbard. Negotiated Sovereignty: Working to Improve Tribal-State Relations. Westport, CT: Praegar Publishers, 2004. (34)] -- () 13:44, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1998

Panzer v. Doyle

-- () 13:14, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

The Balance between Federal, State, and Tribal government

Tribal-State compacts are an interesting study of tribal sovereignty. American government has long operated under the legacy of "Worchester" which implied that tribal governments did not have to answer to state governments, but rather federal government alone [Canby, William C. American Indian Law in a Nutshell. St. Paul, MN: West, 2004. (17)] . Yet, by incorporating these compacts, the IGRA seems to be illustrating a contemporary move towards devolution in some expert's opinions [Witmer, Corntassel. Forced Federalism: Contemporary Challenges to Indigenous Nationhood. Volume 3 of American Indian Law and Policy Series. University of Oklahoma Press,2006.(17)] . Compacts do require that tribes cede some jurisdictional powers to state governments. -- () 11:59, 1 October 2008 (UTC)