Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
STATE of Texas, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. YSLETA DEL SUR PUEBLO; the Tribal Council; tribal governor Michael Silvas or His Successor, Defendants—Appellants.
ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
This is the latest in a long-running string of gaming-law disputes between the State of Texas and the Ysleta del Sur Pueblo. Texas sought to enjoin the Pueblo from holding live-called and electronic bingo. The district court granted the injunction and we upheld it under our prior decisions.1
The Supreme Court granted the Pueblo's petition and rejected Texas's contention that Congress has allowed all of the state's gaming laws to operate as surrogate federal law enforceable on the Ysleta del Sur Pueblo Reservation. Under the Court's interpretation of the Restoration Act, “if a gaming activity is prohibited by Texas law”—that is, absolutely “banned in Texas”—then “it is also prohibited on tribal land as a matter of federal law.”2 But if the gaming activity is merely regulated by Texas law—that is, “by fixing the time, place, and manner in which the game may be conducted”—then it's only “subject to tribal regulation” and “the terms and conditions set forth in federal law, including [the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act] to the extent it is applicable.”3
The Supreme Court's decision resolves this appeal.
Accordingly, we VACATE the district court's judgment and REMAND for proceedings consistent with this opinion.4
FOOTNOTES
1. Texas v. Ysleta del Sur Pueblo, 955 F.3d 408 (5th Cir. 2020), overruled by ––– U.S. ––––, 142 S.Ct. 1929, ––– L.Ed.2d –––– (2022).
2. Ysleta, 142 S.Ct. at 1941, 1944 (emphasis added); see also id. at 1935 (“Because California allowed some bingo to be played ․ the State ‘regulate[d] rather than prohibit[ed] the game.’ ” (quoting California v. Cabazon Band of Mission Indians, 480 U.S. 202, 211, 107 S.Ct. 1083, 94 L.Ed.2d 244 (1987))).
3. Id. at 1939, 1941.
4. We note that while “[n]o one questions that Texas ‘regulates’ bingo,” id. at 1939, it is up to the district court on remand to decide if “ ‘electronic bingo’ qualifies as ‘bingo’ and thus a gaming activity merely regulated by Texas, or whether it constitutes an entirely different sort of gaming activity absolutely banned by Texas and thus forbidden as a matter of federal law,” id. at 1943.
Don R. Willett, Circuit Judge:
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 19-50400
Decided: July 21, 2022
Court: United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)