Public policy made simple. Dive into ourinformation hub today!

Ysleta del Sur Pueblo v. Texas

From Ballotpedia



Ysleta del Sur Pueblo v. Texas
Term: 2021
Important Dates
Argued: February 22, 2022 Decided: June 15, 2022
Outcome
Vacated and remanded
Vote
5-4
Majority
Neil Gorsuch •Stephen Breyer •Sonia Sotomayor •Elena Kagan •Amy Coney Barrett
Dissenting
Chief Justice John Roberts •Clarence Thomas •Samuel Alito •Brett Kavanaugh

Ysleta del Sur Pueblo v. Texas is a case that was decided by theSupreme Court of the United States on June 15, 2022, during the court'sOctober 2021-2022 term. The case was argued before the court on February 22, 2022.

In a 5-4 opinion, the courtvacated theU.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit's ruling andremanded the case for further proceedings, holding that the Ysleta del Sur Pueblo and Alabama-Coushatta Indian Tribes of Texas Restoration Act (1987) functions as a federal ban on gaming activities occurring on tribal lands that are also banned in Texas. JusticeNeil Gorsuch delivered the majority opinion of the court. Chief JusticeJohn Roberts filed a dissenting opinion, joined by JusticesClarence Thomas,Samuel Alito, andBrett Kavanaugh.^[1]Click here for more information about the ruling.

HIGHLIGHTS

The issue: The case concerned the Ysleta del Sur Pueblo and Alabama-Coushatta Indian Tribes of Texas Restoration Act (1987), the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) (1988), gaming regulation on tribal lands, and the sovereign authority of Native American tribal nations.Click here to learn more about the case's background.

The questions presented: "Whether the Restoration Act provides the Pueblo with sovereign authority to regulate non-prohibited gaming activities on its lands (including bingo), as set forth in the plain language of Section 107(b), the Act’s legislative history, and this Court’s holding inCalifornia v. Cabazon Band of Mission Indians, 480 U.S. 202 (1987), or whether the Fifth Circuit’s decision affirmingYsleta I (1994) correctly subjects the Pueblo to all Texas gaming regulation."^[2]^[3]

The outcome: The U.S. Supreme Courtvacated theU.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit's ruling andremanded the case for further proceedings.

The case came on awrit ofcertiorari to theUnited States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. To review the lower court's opinion,click here.^[4]

Timeline

The following timeline details key events in this case:

June 15, 2022: The U.S. Supreme Courtvacated theU.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit's ruling andremanded the case for further proceedings.
February 22, 2022: The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument.
October 18, 2021: The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the case.
October 9, 2020: The Ysleta del Sur Pueblo, The Tribal Council, and Tribal Governor Michael Silvas appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
April 2, 2020: TheUnited States Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuitaffirmed theDistrict Court for the Western District of Texas' judgment.

Background

In 1987, the U.S. Congress passed the Ysleta del Sur Pueblo and Alabama-Coushatta Indian Tribes of Texas Restoration Act ("Restoration Act"). In the provision concerning gaming activities occurring on tribal lands, the Restoration Act states:^[3]^[4]

“

(a) IN GENERAL.— All gaming activities which are prohibited by the laws of the State of Texas are hereby prohibited on the reservation and on lands of the tribe. Any violation of the prohibition provided in this subsection shall be subject to the same civil and criminal penalties that are provided by the laws of the State of Texas. The provisions of this subsection are enacted in accordance with the tribe’s request in Tribal Resolution No. T.C.-02-86[.]

(b) NO STATE REGULATORY JURISDICTION.—Nothing in this section shall be construed as a grant of civil or criminal regulatory jurisdiction to the State of Texas.^[5]

”

In 1988, the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act ("IGRA") was enacted regulatory standards for gaming activity on tribal lands if the activity isn't specifically prohibited by federal or state law. The IGRA defined three classes of gaming, each with specific regulatory standards:^[4]

“

"Class I gaming" includes "social games solely for prizes of minimal value or traditional forms of Indian gaming" associated with "tribal ceremonies or celebrations." IGRA tribes have "exclusive jurisdiction" over class I gaming.

"Class II gaming" includes bingo and card games "explicitly authorized" or "not explicitly prohibited" by state law. But the definition excludes "electronic or electromechanical facsimiles of any game of chance or slot machines of any kind." IGRA tribes may regulate class II gaming provided that they issue a self-regulatory ordinance approved by the National Indian Gaming Commission, which administers IGRA.

"Class III gaming" includes all forms of gaming not included in class I or II, such as slot machines, roulette, and blackjack. Class III gaming is prohibited unless the tribe obtains federal and state approval.^[5]

”

In 1994, theU.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit issued a ruling in the caseYsleta del Sur Pueblo v. Texas (1994), also known asYsleta I, holding that the Restoration Act, not the IGRA, governed whether the gaming activities at issue are permitted under state law. The court also concluded that Texas had regulatory jurisdiction over non-prohibited gaming activities on the tribes’ lands, contrary to the precedent of section b of the Restoration Act providing sovereign authority to the Pueblo over gaming activities.^[3]^[4]

In 1999, Texas sued the Ysleta del Sur Pueblo ("the Pueblo") to stop gaming on tribal lands. The case,Texas v. del Sur Pueblo (2001), is also referred to asYsleta II. TheUnited States District Court for the Western District of Texas granted Texassummary judgment, holding that the gaming was prohibited by state law and prohibited the Pueblo from engaging in regulated gaming activities unless they comply with the relevant regulations. Ultimately, theWestern District of Texas permanently halted the Pueblo from engaging in gaming activities, and the 5th Circuit upheld the injunction.^[3]^[4]

In 2018, Texas sued the Pueblo to halt the operation of bingo gaming on tribal lands, arguing that the gaming violated state law. TheWestern District of Texas grantedsummary judgment in the state's favor. On appeal, the 5th Circuit upheld the district court's judgment. The Pueblo moved for reconsideration. Upon reconsidering the case, the 5th Circuit held that the Restoration Act, not the IGRA, governed gaming operations on tribal lands as defined in the Restoration Act. The court also concluded that whileYsleta I (1994) related to Class III gaming, the policy enforcement conflict between the Restoration Act and the IGRA was not limited to Class III gaming.^[3]^[4]

Afterward, the district court denied the Pueblo's motion for reconsideration and permanently halted their gaming operations. On appeal, the 5th Circuitaffirmed the Western District of Texas' ruling, holding that the Restoration Act is the governing law related to the Pueblo's gaming activities on tribal lands, and forbids any gaming that violates Texas state law.^[4]

Questions presented

Thepetitioner presented the following questions to the court:^[2]

Questions presented:

“

Whether the Restoration Act provides the Pueblo with sovereign authority to regulate non-prohibited gaming activities on its lands (including bingo), as set forth in the plain language of Section 107(b), the Act’s legislative history, and this Court’s holding inCalifornia v. Cabazon Band of Mission Indians, 480 U.S. 202 (1987), or whether the Fifth Circuit’s decision affirmingYsleta I correctly subjects the Pueblo to all Texas gaming regulation.^[5]

”

Oral argument

Audio

Audio of oral argument:^[6]

Your browser doesn't support the audio tag.

Transcript

Transcript of oral argument:[7]

Outcome

Opinion

In the court's majority opinion, JusticeNeil Gorsuch wrote:^[1]

“	Native American Tribes possess “inherent sovereign authority over their members and territories.”Oklahoma Tax Comm’n v. Citizen Band Potawatomi Tribe of Okla., 498 U. S. 505, 509 (1991). Under our Constitution, treaties, and laws, Congress too bears vital responsibilities in the field of tribal affairs. See, e.g.,United States v. Lara, 541 U. S. 193, 200 (2004). From time to time, Congress has exercised its authority to allow state law to apply on tribal lands where it otherwise would not. SeeSanta Clara Pueblo v. Martinez, 436 U. S. 49, 60 (1978);Bryan v. Itasca County, 426 U. S. 373, 392 (1976);Rice v. Olson, 324 U. S. 786, 789 (1945). In this case, Texas contends that Congress expressly ordained that all of its gaming laws should be treated as surrogate federal law enforceable on the Ysleta del Sur Pueblo Reservation. In the end, however, we find no evidence Congress endowed state law with anything like the power Texas claims. ... Texas contends that Congress in the Restoration Act has allowed all of its state gaming laws to act as surrogate federal law on tribal lands. The Fifth Circuit took the same view inYsleta I and in the proceedings below. That understanding of the law is mistaken. The Restoration Act bans as a matter of federal law on tribal lands only those gaming activities also banned in Texas. To allow the Fifth Circuit to revise its precedent and reconsider this case in the correct light, its judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.^[5]	”
—JusticeNeil Gorsuch

Dissenting opinion

Chief JusticeJohn Roberts filed a dissenting opinion, joined by JusticesClarence Thomas,Samuel Alito, andBrett Kavanaugh.

In his dissent, Chief Justice Roberts wrote:^[1]

“	In order to obtain federal trust status, the Ysleta del Sur Pueblo Tribe agreed that Texas’s gambling laws should apply on its reservation. Congress passed a bill codifying this arrangement. The key statutory provision states, “[a]ll gaming activities which are prohibited by the laws of the State of Texas are hereby prohibited on the reservation and on lands of the tribe.” Ysleta del Sur Pueblo and Alabama and Coushatta Indian Tribes of Texas Restoration Act, §107(a), 101 Stat. 668 (Restoration Act). The Tribe now wishes to engage in various high-stakes gaming activities that would clearly violate Texas law—if Texas law applies. The question presented in this case is whether all of Texas’s gaming laws apply on tribal land, or only those laws that categorically ban a particular game. The Court today concludes that the latter reading of the statute is the better one. I disagree. A straightforward reading of the statute’s text makes clear thatall gaming activities prohibited in Texas are also barred on the Tribe’s land. The Court’s contrary interpretation is at odds with the statute’s plain meaning, conflicts with an unambiguous tribal resolution that the Act was “enacted in accordance with,” id., at 668–669, and makes a hash of the statute’s structure. The Court’s approach also winds up treating gambling violations more leniently than other violations of Texas law. This makes little sense, as the whole point of the provision at issue was to further restrict gaming on the Tribe’s lands. I respectfully dissent.^[5]	”
—Chief JusticeJohn Roberts

Text of the opinion

Read the full opinionhere.

October term 2021-2022

See also:Supreme Court cases, October term 2021-2022

The Supreme Court began hearing cases for the term on October 4, 2021. The court's yearly term begins on the first Monday in October and lasts until the first Monday in October the following year. The court generally releases the majority of its decisions in mid-June.^[8]

The court agreed to hear 68 cases during its2021-2022 term.^[9] Four cases weredismissed and one case wasremoved from the argument calendar.^[10]

The court issued decisions in 66 cases during its2021-2022 term. Three cases were decided without argument. Between 2007 and 2021, SCOTUS released opinions in 1,128 cases, averaging 75 cases per year.