States and tribes fighting over Indian gaming were
looking to a U.S. Supreme Court case, Seminole Tribe vs. the State
of Florida, to clarify the future of the contentious,
$4-billion-a-year industry (HCN, 4/1/96). Instead, legal experts
are hailing the March 27 ruling as a clear victory for states’
rights but an unclear directive for Indian gaming.
“It’s just opened the door to lots more
litigation,” says Bill Thompson, a gambling scholar at the
University of Las Vegas.
The National Indian
Gaming Association interprets the court’s opinion as leaving the
1988 Indian Gaming Regulatory Act intact while surgically removing
the provision that allowed tribes to sue states for refusing to
negotiate gambling agreements.
Legal experts say
the ruling may make it easier for tribes to open gaming operations.
They must now appeal directly to the secretary of Interior when
state negotiations fail, rather than suing in court. “It may well
be that the states won the battle but lost the war by cutting
themselves out completely,” observes Howard Dickstein, a tribal
attorney in California, in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer.
But it isn’t clear how Interior Secretary Bruce
Babbitt will react when faced with failed negotiations. “Everyone
will probably try to tiptoe through the tulips until the November
election is over,” says Thompson. “If it’s Dole, the Indians will
lose. If it’s Clinton, the Indians will probably win.” Once the
election is over, Congress will also likely take a stab at revising
the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act.
*Elizabeth
Manning
This article appeared in the print edition of the magazine with the headline Indian gaming still in legal muddle.
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
