Editing Native American gaming (section)

==History==
{{Further|Tribal sovereignty in the United States}}

In the early 1970s, Russell and Helen Bryan, a married [[Chippewa]] couple living in a [[mobile home]] on Indian lands in northern [[Minnesota]], received a [[property tax]] bill from the local county, [[Itasca County]].<ref name="ssrn.com">Kevin K. Washburn, [http://ssrn.com/abstract=1008585 "The Legacy of Bryan v. Itasca County: How an Erroneous $147 County Tax Notice Helped Bring Tribes $200 Billion in Indian Gaming Revenue"] 92 Minnesota Law Review 919 (2008).</ref> The Bryans had never received a property tax bill from the county before. Unwilling to pay it, they took the tax notice to local legal aid attorneys at Leech Lake Legal Services, who brought suit to challenge the tax in the state courts. The Bryans lost their case in the state district court, and they lost again on appeal in a unanimous decision by the [[Minnesota Supreme Court]]. They then sought review at the [[Supreme Court of the United States]]. The Supreme Court granted review, and in [[Bryan v. Itasca County|a sweeping and unanimous decision]] authored by [[William J. Brennan, Jr.|Justice Brennan]], the Supreme Court held not only that states do not have authority to tax Natives on their reservations, but that they also lack the authority to ''regulate'' Native activities on their reservations.<ref name="ssrn.com"/> Within a few years,<ref name=nxninv>{{cite news |url=https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=cg8gAAAAIBAJ&pg=3768%2C1584066 |newspaper=Lewiston Daily Sun |location=Maine |last=Anderson |first=Jack |author-link=Jack Anderson (columnist) |title=Nixon invited to visit China |date=August 13, 1975 |page=4 }}</ref><ref name=mictsgl>{{cite news |url=https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=r_BLAAAAIBAJ&pg=6712%2C4857600 |newspaper=Spokesman-Review |location=Spokane, Washington |agency=(Los Angeles Times) |last=Hillinger |first=Charles |title=Minnesota Indians' casino tests state gaming law |date=February 13, 1976 |page=16 }}</ref> enterprising Natives and tribes began to operate Indian bingo operations in numerous different locations around the United States.

Under the leadership of Howard Tommie, the [[Seminole Tribe of Florida]] built a large high-stakes bingo building on their [[Seminole Hard Rock Hotel and Casino Hollywood|reservation near Fort Lauderdale, Florida]]. The tribe planned for the bingo hall to be open six days a week, contrary to Florida state law which only allows two days a week for bingo halls to be open, as well as going over the maximum limit of $100 jackpots.{{sfn|Wilkinson|2005|p=333}} The law was enacted from the charity bingo limits set by Catholic Churches. The sheriff of Broward County, where the Native reservation lies, made arrests the minute the bingo hall opened, and the tribe sued the county (''[[Seminole Tribe v. Butterworth]]''), stating that Native tribes have sovereignty rights that are protected by the federal government from interference by state government. A District Court ruled in favor of the Natives, citing Chief Justice [[John Marshall]] in ''[[Worcester v. Georgia]]''.

<!-- Court cases in this paragraph -->
Controversy arose when Natives began putting private casinos, [[Bingo (American version)|bingo]] rooms, and [[Lottery|lotteries]] on reservation lands and began setting gaming prizes which were above the maximum legal limit of the state. The Natives argued for sovereignty over their reservations to make them immune from state laws such as [[Public Law 280]], which granted states to have criminal jurisdiction over Native reservations.<ref name="Wilmer, Frank 1997">Wilmer, Frank. "Indian Gaming: Players and Stakes." 1997. ''Wíčazo Ša Review'', ''12''(1), 89-114. Retrieved November 14, 2008, from JSTOR. (1409164).</ref> States were afraid that Natives would have a significant competitive advantage over other gambling establishments in the state which was regulated, which would thus generate a vast amount of income for tribes.

In the late 1970s and continuing into the next decade, the delicate question concerning the legality of tribal gaming and immunity from state law hovered over the Supreme Court.{{sfn|Wilkinson|2005|p=331}} The Court addressed the potential gambling had for organized crime through the [[Organized Crime Control Act]] of 1970.{{Citation needed|date=January 2021}}{{Dubious|date=January 2021}} A report by the Department of Justice presented to the Senate Select Committee on Indian Affairs on March 18, 1992, concluded that through several years of FBI investigation, organized crime had failed to infiltrate Native gaming and that there was no link between criminal activity in Native gaming and organized crime.<ref name="Wilmer, Frank 1997"/>

A [[McGirt v. Oklahoma|Supreme Court ruling issued on July 9, 2020]], which expanded tribal jurisdiction for the Muscogee (Creek) Nation in Oklahoma also opened the possibility for Native Americans to have more power to regulate casino gambling.<ref>{{cite news|title=U.S. Supreme Court deems half of Oklahoma a Native American reservation|first=Lawrence|last=Hurley|publisher=Reuters|date=July 9, 2020|url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-oklahoma-idUSKBN24A268}}</ref>

===Cabazon Band, 1980===
In the early 1960s, the [[Cabazon Band of Mission Indians]], near [[Indio, California]], were extremely poor and did not have much land because of neglected treaties in the 1850s by state senators.{{Citation needed|date=April 2021|reason=Un-cited fact}} Historian Stuart Banner stated that the Cabazon Band and the neighboring [[Morongo Band of Mission Indians|Morongo]] Reservation had "some [[Department of Housing and Urban Development|HUD]] buildings and a few trailers, but that was about it.{{sfn|Wilkinson|2005|p=332}} There was nothing really there. The people simply didn't have a lot." The Cabazon Band turned to casino operations, opening bingo and poker halls in 1980. Shortly thereafter, the Indio police and the Riverside County Sheriff shut down the gambling halls and arrested numerous Natives while seizing any cash and merchandise held in the tribe's possession. The Cabazon Band sued in federal court (''[[California v. Cabazon Band]]'') and won, as did the Seminole Tribe in Florida.{{sfn|Wilkinson|2005|p=332}}
The Supreme Court reviewed the case in 1986 to reach a decision over whether Native reservations are controlled by state law. The Court again ruled that Native gaming was to be regulated exclusively by Congress and the federal government, not state government. With tribal sovereignty upheld, the benefits of gaming became available to many tribes.

===Indian Gaming Regulatory Act===
{{Main|Indian Gaming Regulatory Act}}
In 1988, Congress passed the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) (signed by President [[Ronald Reagan]]) which kept [[tribal sovereignty]] to create casino-like halls, but the states and Natives must be in [[Tribal-State compacts]] and the federal government has the power to regulate the gaming.{{sfn|Wilkinson|2005|p=335}} These compacts have been used by state officials to confiscate Native casino revenue which serves as a "special" tax on Native reservations. Essentially, the tribes still have "exclusive right" to all [[Indian Gaming Regulatory Act#Three classes|classes of gaming]] except when states do not accept that class or it clashes with federal law.{{sfn|Wilkinson|2005|p=336}}

Class III Native gaming became a large issue for the states and federal government, because of these court cases, as Congress debated over a bill for Native gaming called the [[Indian Gaming Regulatory Act]].

Currently, all attempts to challenge the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act on constitutional grounds have failed.

After President Reagan signed the IGRA, Native gaming revenue skyrocketed from $100 million in 1988 to $16.7 billion in 2006.{{sfn|Wilkinson|2005|pp=335–336}} Following the IGRA, the [[National Indian Gaming Commission]] was created as a federal agency in 1988 to regulate high-stakes Native gaming.

The Commission consists of three members: a chairman who is appointed by the US president with the consent of the Senate, and two associate members appointed by the Secretary of the Interior.<ref>Fox, Jim, Jim Kilby, & Anthony F. Lucas."Casino Operations Management." 2005. John Wiley and Sons. 26. {{ISBN|0-471-26632-9}}.</ref> Each member serves a three-year term and must pass a detailed background check by the US Attorney General.

The NIGC withholds certain powers over Class II and Class III gaming. These include budget approval, civil fines, fees, subpoenas, and permanent orders. The NIGC monitors Class II gaming on Native lands on a continuing basis through inspection, investigation, access to records, and contracts.<ref>Fox, Jim, Jim Kilby, & Anthony F. Lucas."Casino Operations Management." 2005. John Wiley and Sons. 28. {{ISBN|0-471-26632-9}}.</ref> As for Class III gaming, all contracts must be approved by the chairman of the NIGC. 200 of the 562 federally recognized tribes created Class III gaming of large casinos and high jackpots.{{sfn|Wilkinson|2005|p=336}}

This rise of gaming not only brought great revenue but also corruption. In January 2006, a court case involving lobbyists convicted of felonies such as conspiracy, fraud, and tax evasion. This was known as the [[Jack Abramoff Indian lobbying scandal]]. These lobbyists, [[Jack Abramoff]], [[Ralph Reed]], [[Grover Norquist]], and [[Michael Scanlon]], bribed members of Congress when lobbying for Native casinos, then overcharged their Native clients; this generated around $90 million in fees from the Natives.<ref>''Congress--and Other U.S. Cesspools'' {{ISBN|0-932438-29-6}}, {{ISBN|978-0-932438-29-4}}</ref>

===2006 legislation===

In 2006, Congress introduced legislation to protect their own casino interests from those tribes that are outside reservations.{{citation needed|date=April 2015}} Further, the [[Bureau of Indian Affairs]] (BIA) has faced increasing pressure to tighten regulatory policy and oversight of casino approvals. In particular, the BIA has been instructed by Congress to implement new procedures after two decades of IGRA's existence. These procedures would allow local communities to have more influence in the siting of casinos in their community and would make the process of casino approval more transparent. To many tribes, however, the proposed regulations will further encroach on tribal sovereignty.