The development of gaming operations on Indian reservations, and the phenomenal success some tribes have had with these operations, has brought a new dimension to the debate over Indian sovereignty. For the first time some tribes now have, through gaming profits, the economic means to exercise their 'inherent sovereign powers,' among many, the ability to provide essential services themselves rather than having to depend on the government. States, however, have perceived this growth in Indian gaming as a challenge to their sovereignty and have, along with the non-Indian gaming industry, sought to restrict Indian operations. Tribes, in turn, see such attempts to limit their ability to run gaming as infringements on their sovereignty.
GAMING AND INDIAN SOVEREIGNTY
Some tribes have multiple reservations allotted to them, while around 200 of the nation’s 550+ recognized Indian tribes have no land at all. Revenue – While Las Vegas and Atlantic City would hate to admit it, the annual revenue from casinos on Indian reservations exceeds the combined totals for gaming in both cities. The measure would have authorized Nebraska racetracks to add Class III casino gambling. Class III gambling is defined by the U.S. Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) as 'house-banked' games, such as slot machines and table games. Isolated reservations are where most American Indian tribal casinos are located. Being remote makes it difficult to work with other casinos as none are nearby. On the other hand, the host of a casino operated by a major corporation can have 900 patrons they’re trying to get to know on a personal level. There are two reasons a state may not have any Indian casinos. Some do not have any reservations. The other reason is that the state has not reached a compact with tribes within the border. Georgia and Tennessee are examples of the former. Utah, South Carolina, and Alaska are examples of the latter. They do not have full power over the land, but they do have limited governmental rule. Many Indian Reservations make money through gambling casinos. Not every state in the United States has an Indian Reservation, and not every Native American tribe has one. There are also Indian Reservations in Canada, however they are set up and run a bit.
The era of reservation gaming was ushered in by the Supreme Court's decision in the 1987 case Californiav. Cabazon Band of Mission Indians. The Court ruled that a state has no authority to regulate or prohibit gaming on Indian lands if the State otherwise allows gaming. Since few states criminally prohibit all types of gaming ('Las Vegas' nights for charity, for example, are widely permitted), most states, suggests Indian law attorney Linda Epperley, arguably had no power under this ruling to intervene in any type of Indian gaming activity (Epperley 1992: 413).
Congress attempted to give some control over Indian gaming to the states by adopting in 1988 the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA). Under the provisions of the Act, states are required to enter into good-faith negotiations with tribes who wish to establish gaming operations. A gaming compact must be reached in this manner between the state and the tribe if Indian gaming operations are to be lawful.
The IGRA, notes attorney Robert Nance, is an 'experiment in shared sovereignty' (Nance 1992:71). The Act requires tribes to negotiate compacts with states to conduct gaming. But because states and tribes negotiate as distinct sovereigns, states cannot automatically impose upon tribes limitations on gaming that they impose on their own citizens. Conversely, under the IGRA tribes cannot conduct gaming operations without state input. According to Nance, 'by act of Congress, the subordinate sovereigns must negotiate the terms of permitted Indian gaming, neither being free to dictate to the other. Thus, tribes and states must creatively manage to share sovereignty over gaming conducted in Indian country.' This 'shared sovereignty' approach has come under criticism by opponents of Indian gaming (and of the IGRA in particular) and is at the center of a current movement to impose tighter controls on reservation gambling.
CLAMPING DOWN
At the time of the IGRA's passage, it is unlikely that anyone foresaw the enormous growth potential for Indian gaming. Minnesota Congressman Gerry Sikorski, for example, stood before Congress and described Indian gaming as 'a couple of video machines hundreds of miles from Donald Trump and the Vegas strip .. piddling money to the big boys.' But by 1993, 25 states allowed some form of gaming on reservations and the profits from Indian gaming had skyrocketed to $6 billion. 175 tribes were involved with gaming.
Trump, as well as state governors and other government officials, was claiming that Indian gaming was out of control, corrupt, and in dire need of stricter governmental regulation. In testimony before a Congressional hearing in October 1993, Trump stated that 'it's obvious that organized crime is rampant on the Indian reservations. This thing is going to blow sky high. It will be the biggest scandal since AlCapone, and it will destroy the gaming industry.' The FBI refuted these statements and has testified that it has not detected major incursions by organized crime into Indian gaming around the country.
Trump has also filed a lawsuit against Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbit and Anthony Hope, Chairman of the National Indian Gaming Commission, alleging the unconstitutionality of the IGRA. The suit says that states should have the right to decide whether to allow gambling and that the Act gives Indians casinos an unfair advantage over Trump's and other casinos.
The IGRA has likewise come under attack from members of Congress and state governors seeking to rein in Indian gaming and increasing state control. In 1993 New Jersey Representative Robert Torricelli introduced the Gaming Integrity and State Law Enforcement Act as a means of reforming the IGRA by giving greater oversight power to the states. 'What has happened (since the implementation of the IGRA) does not reflect the original intent of the IGRA legislation,' he said in testimony before the Senate Committee on Native American Affairs. 'Native Americans have established forms of gaming that no other citizens are allowed to operate.' Torricelli's bill is to be considered by Congress during the summer of 1994.
For their part, many Indian groups have vehemently opposed the moves by Trump, Torricelli, and others to restrict what they see as their legal right to establish and control gaming operations on their tribal lands. These attempts amount to 'economic racism,' said Barona Band of Mission Indians Tribal Chairman Clifford LaChappa. Other Indian leaders accuse those seeking to restrict Indian gaming of ignorance of Indian law and of being in the pockets of Las Vegas and Atlantic City gambling concerns.
Thus sovereignty - as it is variously interpreted with regard to the gaming issue - remains at the center of concern. On one side, Indians argue that as sovereign nations - a status recognized by federal law - only their should have the right to regulate gaming on their lands and to reap its benefits. Gaming revenues have provided them the economic power to reassert their sovereignty. Tribes have thus established a strong link between sovereignty and self-sufficiency. According to Gaiashkibos, president of the National Congress of American Indians, 'Our tribes recognize that gaming is an activity which goes far beyond the debates over the details of the gaming industry itself: gaming involves tribal authority, self-determination, and the sovereignty to control our own destinies. The issues of sovereignty of self-determination are part and parcel of the question of `who should regulate Indian gaming.'
Supporters of states' rights, on the other hand, argue that gaming-strengthened tribal sovereignty is in fact acting to erode state sovereignty. State governors, in seeking to amend the IGRA, have argued that gaming oversight should be within the realm of state, and not tribal, sovereignty. 'States recognize and support the economic self-sufficiency of Indian tribes,' said Governor Mike Sullivan of Wyoming, testifying before Congress on behalf of the National Governors' Association earlier this year. 'We do not believe, however, that such economic development should come at the expense of state sovereignty or dictate, directly or indirectly, state policy decisions.'
THE WAMPANOAGES: A STUDY IN SOVEREIGNTY
There is, of course, no unanimity within Indian tribes as to the threats or benefits of gaming to tribal sovereignty. Some tribes, such as the Alabama-Coushattas of Texas, have flatly rejected proposals to establish gaming on their reservations, citing moral and ethical considerations. Mixed feelings about gaming have also been expressed recently among the Wampanoag nation of Massachusetts. Inspired by the mega-profits earn by the Mashantucket Pequots at the Foxwoods casino in Connecticut, the Wampanoags have been negotiating with the Massachusetts state government to establish their own gaming complex. One study estimated that such as operation could bring in revenues of over $1 billion a year.
Supporters of gaming within the tribe maintain that, as a poor and numerically small tribe, the gaming money would allow the Wampanoags to recover their tribal traditions, many of which have been lost since the Wampanoags' first contact with English settlers in 1620. These supporters argue that by asserted its sovereignty through gaming revenues, the tribe could not only recover its past but also, as other tribes have done, assure its future. 'Maybe some people say you deserve to be poor, but I don't ascribe to that,' said Jeffrey Madison, the tribe's director of economic development. 'We've got nothing. People can get very complacent in their existence, but whether they know it or not, there's a better life out there for our children.'
There is, however, a vocal minority within the Wampanoags that opposes the tribe's involvement with gambling. This group says it fears that security and sovereignty will be gained at the cost of tribal integrity. They also express sadness that something as morally dubious as gaming should be the Wampanoags' ticket out of poverty. 'As Americans, we should all be ashamed that the state has to take care of its people with gambling,' said Gladys Widdiss, a tribe member.
Massachusetts governor William Weld has been generally supportive of the Wampanoags' efforts. His administration is reportedly seeking $100 million from the tribe in exchange for exclusive gaming rights in Massachusetts. Some of Weld's advisors, however, have criticized the attempt to bring legalized gambling to the state. Attorney General Scott Harshbarger has called for comprehensive regulations to prevent corruption before authorizing any gaming operations. Weld's chief legal counsel, Brackett Deniston, has also raised questions about the Wampanoag's financial partner in the project, Carnival Corporation.
Massachusetts' two U.S. sentors, Edward Kennedy and John Kerry have not taken a position on the tribe's proposal. However, U.S. representative Barney Frank, whose district contains the town in which the Wampanoags' would locate their casino, strongly supports the tribe's plans. 'I will fight anything that makes it impossible for the Wampanoags to reach an agreement with Gov. Weld,' he said recently. Despite Frank's support, federal officials estimate that it could be another three years before the tribe can obtain all the approvals needed to establish their operation.
AN INHERENT RIGHT TO SOVEREIGNTY
The second part of this article is (except where noted) based on Stephen L. Pevar's The Rights of Indians and Tribes: The Basic ACLU Guide to Indian and Tribal Rights (Southern Illinois University Press: 1992).
In light of the gaming issue, the question of what exactly is meant by Indian sovereignty needs to be examined. The advent of gaming has not necessarily made the answer to this question any clearer. Part of the problem is that sovereignty is a murky concept in any context. Oppenheim's International Law states that 'there exists perhaps no conception the meaning of which is more controversial than that of sovereignty. It is an indisputable fact that this conception, from the moment when it was introduced into political science until the present day, has never had a meaning which was universally agreed upon.'
This lack of 'universal agreement' on the meaning of sovereignty is certainly true with respect to its application in the Indian context. There is substantial dissension among politicians, scholars, and among Indians themselves as to just what Indian sovereignty entails. The concept has been subject to both wide and narrow interpretations since Indians first entered into formal relations with European settlers.
There are, however, basic constructs pertaining to the nature and scope of Indian sovereignty that have remained in place and continue to influence perceptions of the issue.
ELEMENTS OF SOVEREIGNTY
The most basic component of any notion of sovereignty is self-government. No entity can be sovereign without the ability to govern itself. Indian nations clearly do have the right to self-government. The Supreme Court first recognized this 'inherent right' in the landmark 1832 decision Worcester v. Georgia. The Court ruled that the state of Georgia could not impose its laws on the Cherokee Indian Reservation, noting that:
Indian nations [are] distinct political communities, having territorial boundaries, within which their authority is exclusive, and having a right to all the lands within those boundaries, which is not only acknowledged, but guaranteed by the United States.. Indian nations had always been considered as distinct, independent political communities, retaining their original rights, as the undisputed possessors of the soil from time immemorial..The Cherokee nation, then, is a distinct community, occupying its own territory..in which the laws of Georgia can have no force.
This principle was reaffirmed by the Court in Oklahoma Tax Commission v. Citizen Band Potawatomi Indian Tribe (1991), in which it stated that 'Indian tribes are `domestic dependent nations' which exercise inherent sovereign authority over their members and territories.' A number of important powers held by tribes flow from this inherent right of self-government. Among them are (1) the ability to determine tribal membership; (2)regulation of tribal property; (3)regulation of individual property; (4)the right to tax; (5)the right to maintain law and order; (6) the right to exclude nonmembers from tribal territory, (7)the right to regulate domestic relations; (8)and the right to regulate commerce and trade.
FEDERAL POWERS AND INDIAN SOVEREIGNTY
Despite these powers, however, Indian sovereignty is ultimately a 'limited' sovereignty. The Supreme Court has described tribal governments as 'quasi-sovereign' and 'semi-independent.' (U.S. v. Kagama 1886). By sheer might, if not, as some argue, by legal justification, the U.S. government retains final authority to 'legislate for the Indian tribes in all matters, including their form of government.' (U.S.v. Wheeler 1978).
The ostensible legal basis for this power is found in the U.S. Constitution. Article I, section 8, clause 3 (the Commerce Clause) provides that the 'Congress shall have the Power..to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.' Article II, Section 2, clause 2 (the Treaty Clause) gives the President and the Senate the power to make treaties, including treaties with Indian tribes. The Supreme Court held in Worcester that these two constitutional provisions provide Congress with 'all that is required' for complete control over Indian affairs. This is the doctrine of 'plenary power,' the cornerstone of relations between the federal government and Indian tribes. Under plenary power, the Congress has 'full and complete' power over all Indian tribes, their government, their members, and their property. This power includes the authority to eliminate tribal powers of local self-government.
In addition to using the doctrine of plenary power, the U.S. courts have upheld the right of Congress to impinge on Indian sovereignty based on two other principles known as the 'political question' and 'federal trust responsibility' doctrines. The former was invoked in the Supreme Court's decision in Lone Wolfv. Hitchcock (1903). The Court upheld a law that Indians had challenged as a violation of a prior treaty with the Indian nation. The Court supported the statute by stating that the power of Congress over Indian affairs was of a 'political nature' and thus a matter for the executive or legislative branches, not the federal courts.
The federal trust responsibility doctrine is one of the most important elements of Indian law. Simply stated, the trust responsibility is the legal obligation of the U.S. government to protect Indian lands, resources and right of self-government. This obligation stems from the idea that promises made by the U.S. government in treaties with Indians - promises which included the creation of reservations and the protection of tribal members by the government and the giving up of land by the Indians - create a 'trust relations.' The Supreme Court has noted that the promises made in this way create 'a duty of protection' toward the Indians. (U.S. v. Kagama 1886).
The courts have extended the trust responsibility so that federal statutes, agreements and executives orders can create trust obligations in the same way a treaty can. The government, however, is not obligated to perform a specific act under the trust responsibility doctrine unless a treaty, statute, or agreement expressly imposes or clearly implies that obligation. Moreover, a trust responsibility is in effect 'self-imposed' by the government. It can terminate a trust relationship with an Indian tribe at any time, with or without the tribe's consent. Thus, although theoretically a tool for protecting Indian rights, the trust responsibility has also been used the government to take away Indian lands and resources and restrict tribal governments in the name of protecting Indians.
STATE POWERS AND INDIAN SOVEREIGNTY
The U.S. Constitution gives Congress rather than the states exclusive authority over Indian affairs. Thus, generally speaking, unless Congress has authorized a state to apply its laws within an Indian reservation, it may not do so. States in fact have very little authority to regulate reservation Indians. The Supreme Court has noted that, 'the policy of leaving Indians free from state jurisdiction and control is deeply rooted in the Nation's history.' (McClanahan v. Arizona State Tax Commission 1973.) The inability of states to tax or regulate the affairs of Indians has caused considerable resentment on the part of some states' residents towards Indians. These feelings are currently evident in the debate over Indian gaming.
As a general rule, states do not have the right to regulate the activities of reservation Indians. The Supreme Court affirmed this rule in Worcester v. Georgia by declaring that state laws 'can have no force' within an Indian reservation unless Congress has authorized the state to apply them there. The Court has since moved away from this absolute position, stating recently that 'there is no rigid rule by which to resolve the question whether a particular state law may be applied to an Indian reservation or to tribal members.' (White Mountain Apache Tribe v. Bracker 1980). Thus, a state law authorized by Congress is valid, but some state laws can be applied within Indian country even if not expressly authorized by Congress. Nearly every law, however, that states have attempted to enforce within Indian country has been struck down by the courts, except for those explicitly authorized by Congress.
The Supreme Court now uses a two-part test to determine which state laws can be enforced in Indian country without congressional approval. The parts of this test are known as the 'federal preemption test' and the 'infringement test.' The former stipulates that a state law that is inconsistent with federal law is not valid. If a federal law, for example, prohibits states from taxing Indian land, a state tax on that land violates the presumption test. The infringement rest, established by the Court in 1959 in Williams v. Lee, provides that a state may not infringe 'on the right of reservation Indians to make their own laws and be ruled by them.' This principle protects the inherent right of Indian tribes to be self-governing.
A state law must pass both of these tests in order to be valid. State laws affecting reservation activities must also be viewed against a 'backdrop' of tribal sovereignty, the inherent right of the Indian tribe to govern itself. The Supreme Court explained in 1980 (Bracker) that 'traditional nations of Indian self-government are so deeply ingrained in our jurisprudence that they have provided an important `backdrop' against which' the state law in question must be viewed.
CONCLUSION
Although there is a wide difference of opinion among both Indians and non-Indians as to its costs and benefits, gaming on reservations has grown rapidly since 1988 and will likely continue to do so for some time. Thus the sovereignty issue will remain one of great significance for tribes as well as for state governments affected by newly-empowered assertions of Indian sovereignty. Ultimately, the issue is - as are all questions of sovereignty - one of control. Who will control the profits earned by Indian gaming? Tribes argue that they, as sovereign nations, have the right to determine the allocation of this money. States will continue to argue that it is their prerogative to restrict and control Indian gaming so that it does not get 'out of hand' or become contaminated by Mafia influence. Tribes counter that such concerns are misplaced; gaming is within their dominion, and thus they will take responsibility for whatever consequences may occur. Both sides seek to assert their control and, ultimately, to protect their sovereignty.
Article copyright Cultural Survival, Inc.
CSQ Issue:
June 1994
Introduction to American Indian Tribal Casinos
Thirty U.S. states offer tribal casinos. That number is climbing. To better understand them, here are eleven things you need to know about American Indian tribal casinos.
Further, tribal casinos in another two U.S. states are currently pending. Whether your state has tribal gaming or not, you’ve likely already had the opportunity to visit a tribal casino somewhere.
This article has the following sections:
- Introduction to American Indian Tribal Casinos
- 1. Which States have Tribal Gaming?
- 2. The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act
- 3. Why Federal Recognition Matters
- 4. Tribal-State Gaming Compacts
- 5. Who Operates a Tribal Casino?
- 6. Don’t Cheat at a Tribal Casino
- 7. Tribal Use of Gaming Profits
- 8. Tribal Casinos Players Clubs
- 9. Class II vs. Class III Tribal Gaming
- 10. East Coast Versus West Coast
- 11. The Future of Tribal Gaming
- Summary of American Indian Tribal Casinos
Keep Reading … or Listen Instead!
This audio contains commentary not found anywhere else!
Subscribe to my Professor Slots podcast: Apple Podcasts | Google Podcasts | Spotify | Gaana | Stitcher | Pandora | iHeart Radio | Tune-In | SoundCloud | RadioPublic | Android | RSS and wherever else you find podcasts!
1. Which States Have Tribal Gaming?
I’ve reviewed tribal gaming in each state as part of my Online Resource, an ongoing weekly series. Out of 52 states, only 30 U.S. states currently have tribal casinos. Another two states have pending tribal casinos.
The states with tribal gaming along with their number of tribal casinos are: Alabama (3), Alaska (8), Arizona (25), California (66), Colorado (2), Connecticut (2), Florida (7), Idaho (7), Indiana (1), Iowa (3), Kansas (5), Louisiana (4), Maine (bingo only), Massachusetts (1 pending), Michigan (23), Minnesota (19), Mississippi (3), Montana (8), Nebraska (4), Nevada (2), New Mexico (21), New York (11), North Carolina (2), North Dakota (6), Oklahoma (more than 108), Oregon (9), South Dakota (11), Texas (2), Washington (30), and Virginia (1 pending).
Oklahoma has the highest number of tribal casinos. In my state-by-state article on Oklahoma slots, I list the 108 largest tribal casinos. Oklahoma has many other convenience stores and truck stops which identify themselves as casinos.
With 66 sites, California has the second highest number of tribal casinos of any U.S. state. It has only tribal casinos and no non-tribal commercial casinos.
2. The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act
In 1988, the U.S. Congress established the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA). This federal law provides tribes and states with a legal framework to develop tribal gaming. It is the reason the U.S. has tribal casinos with Class III games.
American Indian cultures have always included gambling. Before the IGRA, and a driving force behind establishing it, tribes began to generate gaming revenue and profit. This tribal gaming mostly began with tribes opening bingo halls.
However, such swift growth led to abuses. When states began lobbying the U.S. Congress to regulate tribal gaming, after more than a few compromises the IRGA was born. President Ronald Reagan signed it into law on October 18, 1988.
This federal law intents to:
- Regulate tribal gaming
- Protect tribal gaming as a means of generating revenue
- Encourage economic development of the tribes
- Protect against negative influences such as organized crime
3. Why Federal Recognition Matters
The U.S. Constitution gives the federal government the right to interact with American Indian tribes. However, 1913 U.S. Supreme Court and 1988 U.S. Supreme Court decisions provided additional clarity, which also helped lead to the establishment of the IGRA.
However, what establishes that a tribal community is, in fact, an American Indian tribe? Who decides? How do they choose? Perhaps more importantly, how can this process be consistent? Even today, this decision-making is fraught with difficulties.
Federal recognition of an American Indian tribe is a process owned by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) within the U.S. Department of the Interior. The BIA sets the criteria for federal recognition of tribes. Tribal communities petition for federal recognition through the BIA’s Office of Federal Acknowledgment (OFA) which carefully researches each request for a recommendation.
Once federally recognized, the federal government acknowledges a tribe’s right of self-government while supporting its tribal sovereignty and self-determination. Limitations on these rights are the same as those for states.
There are currently 573 bands and tribes recognized by the federal government as American Indian. The last increase in the number of tribes occurred in early 2018 when six new tribes received federal recognition. Only federally-recognized tribes may use the IGRA to negotiate a tribal-state gaming compact with their state.
4. Tribal-State Gaming Compacts
A compact is a negotiated agreement between two legal entities. In this case, a federally-recognized tribe and the state in which it resides negotiate a tribal-state gaming compact. Once settled, the U.S. Department of the Interior must approve all compacts.
However, thanks to the IGRA, not all tribal casinos need a gaming compact. Why? Because it depends on the type of gaming offered. Or, more accurately, its classification.
The IGRA defined gaming classifications which, as a federal law, makes these commonly held definitions for all U.S. states. For more on gaming classifications, see Getting to Know Legal Gaming Classifications. In brief,
- Class I: Tribal ceremonies
- Class II: Competition-based gaming such as bingo
- Class III: Slot machines and table games
Class III tribal gaming requires a tribal-state gaming compact. Class I tribal ceremonies do not. But, Class II games may require a gaming compact, depending on the state. Tribal compacts are the result of often lengthy negotiations, after all.
The negotiations include whether non-tribal gaming exists in the state. If not, compact talks can be an uphill battle. It’s a lot more work to introduce gaming to a state.
If non-tribal gaming exists, tribes may only negotiate for those Class III games already approved by the state at non-tribal casinos. Overcoming this limitation can be lots of work. Overcoming it isn’t common.
If tribal gaming is coming to your state, and you’re wondering what kind of games you’ll find, consider what other gaming already exists in your state. That’s most likely what you’ll get.
In part, compact negotiations include a desire by the state to protect the income of existing non-tribal casinos. These can be lobbying efforts by those casinos or just protecting state income taxes from gaming revenue.
As with Virginia tribal gaming efforts, for example, out-of-state lobbying efforts have so far prevented Virginia’s first tribal casino. MGM Resorts International is making every effort to protect the gaming income of MGM National Harbor, just across the state line in Maryland.
5. Who Operates a Tribal Casino?
The owner of each tribal casino is one or more federally-recognized American Indian tribe, band, or pueblo. But, that’s the owner. Who operates the casino?
Sometimes, a tribe decides to let a professional casino operator run their tribal casino. There are solid business reasons to take this approach. While the casino operator takes a cut of revenue, a professionally run casino can generate quite a bit more profit to share.
For instance, Harrah’s operates both tribal casinos in North Carolina. The Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians owns both tribal casinos. But, the tribe has contracted Harrah’s, a division of Caesars Entertainment, to operate it for them.
Part of that agreement between the tribe and Caesars included allowing Harrah’s to have its name included in the name of the casinos:
- Harrah’s Cherokee in Cherokee situated 50 miles west of Ashville
- Harrah’s Cherokee Valley River in Murphy situated 109 miles southwest of Ashville
Caesars Entertainment is one of the largest casino operator conglomerates in the world, along with MGM Resorts International. For instance, they own and operate most casinos on the Las Vegas strip.
A substantial business advantage with hiring such a major casino operator isn’t just their knowledge, experience, and professionalism. These operators also have assets to share.
All casinos have a players’ reward club. It may be small or large, but they all have one. But, guests of tribal casinos operated by Harrah’s get to join the Caesars Rewards players’ club. American Indian tribal casinos operated by MGM get to join M life rewards.
A Caesars Reward club card holder gets more and more interesting complimentary gifts than a tribal casino could provide alone. Put another way, that widely available players’ club program is of value to guests at tribal casinos.
It’s a win-win scenario for both the tribe and the casino operator. With it, the tribe gains credibility and gives value to their guests. For the casino operator, it’s an inexpensive perk. Why?
Because a significant casino operator does not have to go through the expense of setting up a rewards club program. For example, there’s hardly any additional cost to adding a few thousand members through a casino or two in North Carolina. After all, their rewards program already has millions of members.
A significant casino operator need not be a non-tribal organization. Mohegan Gaming and Entertainment (MGE) is a fast-growing U.S. and international casino operator managed by the Mohegan Tribe. The eight casinos MGE operates are:
- Casino Niagara in Niagara Falls, Ontario, Canada
- Ilani in Ridgefield, Washington
- Inspire Entertainment Resort in Incheon, South Korea
- Mohegan Sun in Uncasville, Connecticut
- Mohegan Sun Pocono in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania
- Paragon Casino Resort in Marksville, Louisiana
- Fallsview Casino Resort in Niagara Falls, Ontario, Canada
- Resorts Casino Hotel in Atlantic City, New Jersey
6. Don’t Cheat at a Tribal Casino
As already mentioned, federally-recognized American Indian tribes have:
- The right of self-determination
- Tribal sovereignty supported by the federal government
In general, this means they have tribal laws, courts, and police. If caught cheating at a tribal casino, you would expect to go to jail. But, would you expect tribal jail? Casinos near oklahoma city ok. Further, what are your expectations regarding tribal courts?
Robert Nersesian has written an excellent book, The Law for Gamblers: A Legal Guide to the Casino Environment. I recommend to you his excellent Chapter 8 entitled Indian Gaming: OMG, WTF. It’s a real eye-opener.
What might happen if someone cheats at a tribal casino? Naturally, the tribal police will take you to tribal jail. If you are not a member of the tribe, you next discover you have no constitutional rights to due process or other protections.
Perhaps you leisurely read through the above section on the IGRA and the rights given to federally-recognized tribes. If you gamble at tribal casinos, maybe you should reread those a little more closely. Just sayin’.
7. Tribal Use of Gaming Profits
In 1988, the U.S. Congress enacted the IGRA to support tribal economic development including:
- Tribal government operations
- Infrastructure
- Social services and financial programs
- Tribal enterprises
- Charitable causes
- Contract local government services, if desired
To understand actual use of tribal gaming profits, consider each state having a non-tribal gaming industry. How well do those states use their non-tribal gaming profits? Well, it depends on the state.
Not all states are doing particularly well with their use of non-tribal gaming revenue. Some are an excellent example to other states. Others, not so much. The care and quality of state gaming regulations, or lack of care and quality, determines their success.
There are only 56 U.S. states, territories, and the federal district, each of which is a U.S. gaming jurisdiction. In my non-legal opinion, even Utah is a U.S. gaming jurisdiction. Why? Because Utah has at least one state gaming regulation: All forms of gambling are illegal.
Gambling Casinos On Indian Reservations
When it comes to using gaming profits, American Indian tribes are like U.S. states. It depends. However, there are ten times more federally recognized tribes than U.S. states.
Under the IGRA, 573 bands and tribes with federal recognition unite at a national level. This federal law is common amongst all of them in terms of supporting tribal economic development. There is no such common law for state gaming regulations.
Because of common federal law, perhaps there is more abuse among the states than across ten times as many tribes. Perhaps. The difficulty is the considerable investment needed to know the differences.
For example, it took me just over a year to write my state-by-state online resource for slots players. Each week, I wrote an article about one U.S. state, territory, or the federal district. For the complete set, it took me 56 weeks to write 56 articles.
Imagine how long it would take an individual to research and write 573 articles on each federally recognized tribe. At a rate of one piece per week, such a project would take ten years. The start of the series would be ten years out of date once completed.
However, larger organizations or federal and state governments have the resources, personnel, and funding to take on such a project. For example, the American Gaming Association (AGA) contracted an economic study of tribal gaming. See The Economic Impact of Tribal Gaming: A State-by-State Analysis from September 2017.
This 21-page report is well worth reading. It also makes several interesting observations. Here are just a few:
- Tribal gaming has grown 300x since the passing of the IGRA in 1988
- Tribal gaming generates over 44% of all U.S. gaming revenue
- Seven of the top 10 state gaming revenues include tribal gaming
8. Tribal Casinos Players Clubs
Have you identified your gambling goal as earning complimentary gifts? It’s one possible gambling goal for slot machine players. Almost entirely, players receive comps through casino rewards programs.
By necessity, a small tribal casino has a small casino rewards program. However, an American Indian tribal casino operated by a significant corporation often comes with its own players’ club. Depending on the comps you are looking to earn, either scenario has its pros and cons.
A small casino rewards program at your local tribal casino focuses on the local area. The local audience is well known. That knowledge is its strength. To them, it’s personal.
An extensive casino rewards program of a major casino operator has difficulty being personal. However, you can potentially earn travel comps from them to any of their other properties. For example, they may operate half the casinos on the Las Vegas strip.
Casino rewards programs are about establishing and maintain customer loyalty. A small casino rewards program tries to partner with other casinos, perhaps offering a bus trip across the state to a nearby casino.
A national rewards program tries to take away the competitive advantage of small rewards programs. One way to do this is to establish a team of hosts at each casino where they operate. These hosts learn what the patrons of that casino want.
Both size rewards programs do these things with somewhat limited success. Isolated reservations are where most American Indian tribal casinos are located. Being remote makes it difficult to work with other casinos as none are nearby.
On the other hand, the host of a casino operated by a major corporation can have 900 patrons they’re trying to get to know on a personal level. That’s a lot of people to get to know. These hosts take a lot of detailed notes.
Earning complimentary gifts is what happens when you play at a casino when using their rewards program card. Anyone can earn a comp, sometimes by merely signing up for the program.
But, some slot machine players have identified earning complimentary gifts as their primary gambling goal. For them, it’s not about money or entertainment. It’s about earning comps, which means players need a rewards program with which they can work.
The loyalty programs at tribal casinos vary in size and what they have to offer. Bigger is not always better. If you want to earn comps, what comps do you want to receive?
At American Indian tribal casinos, the player desirability of small or large rewards programs depends on you. It depends on what you want.
Do you want a new outdoor grill? Sure, either size club will provide one if you earn it. How about earning travel comps? Well, that depends on where they can send you as well as if you care to go there. Don’t even get me started on winning a car at a casino.
9. Class II vs. Class III Tribal Gaming
The IGRA is a federal law. It defined gaming classifications for all U.S. states, territories, and the federal district. Therefore, these classifications are legal definitions. Few other legal gambling terms are standard across the U.S.
As a reminder, Class I gaming is tribal ceremonies. Class II gaming is competition-style games. Class III gaming is everything else.
If you are visiting a tribal casino, you’ll want to know in advance if they are offering Class II or Class III gaming. Why? Because it can be difficult to tell which is which when sitting down at a slot machine.
For a Class II slot machine, the spinning reels are often for entertainment purposes only. This feature means it can be difficult to distinguish from a Class III slot machine. Some tribal casinos have both types.
What States Have Indian Casinos
But, does it matter if you’re playing a Class II or Class III slot machine? Here’s why it matters: the gaming regulations are different. For instance, the Class III machine might have a minimum payout return limit defined in the tribal compact. The Class II machine next to it usually doesn’t.
Another difference is more practical. Class II machines are competition-based. One way a slot machine becomes competitive is by including a gameplay decision for the player.
Another way to make a slot machine competitive doesn’t involve a gameplay decision. Instead, all the Class II slot machines on the casino floor may be playing a form of bingo. It is not at all evident if this is happening.
If you’re playing slots at American Indian tribal casinos, in my opinion, you need to know what game you’re playing. In terms of card table games, do you know how to win if you’re holding cards? No.
To win at table card games, you also need the game rules. You need to know what card game you’re playing.
The same is true with slot machines at American Indian tribal casinos. Perhaps you’re enjoying an excellent game of Class II bingo on an electronic gaming machine.
Or, maybe you have more legal protections on the Class III machine next to a bingo machine. Know that there’s a difference in ways that likely matter to you.
10. East Coast Versus West Coast
Is there a difference between American Indian tribal casinos based on where they are in the U.S.? Because the IGRA is a federal law, there are fewer differences from coast-to-coast than you might expect.
However, there’s still a substantial difference. This is history-based. Many of the tribes found in Oklahoma did not originate in that state or even that region of the country.
The ancestral home of many tribes currently federally recognized as tribal communities in Oklahoma was much nearer to the east coast of the U.S. There’s no way not to recognize that eastern tribes moved west, often forcibly. Or, through famine or otherwise, the tribes died out literally or figuratively.
Today, there are few American Indian tribes near the east coast of the U.S. Those that remain are, shall we say, durable. And, that durability includes tribal gaming.
Mohegan Gaming & Entertainment (MGE) is a significant casino operator operated by the Mohegan Tribe of Connecticut. As a demonstration of its success, MGE recently won a contract with the gaming jurisdiction crown agency of Ontario. Besides its other casino properties, MGE now operates the two Canadian casinos near Niagara Falls.
On the other hand, California has the second most casinos in the U.S. Further, California has tribal casinos only.
Near the middle of the continental U.S. is Oklahoma. Not only does it have the largest population of American Indians when compared to any other U.S. state, but it also has the highest number of casinos. Like California, Oklahoma has tribal casinos only.
11. The Future of Tribal Gaming
As of September 2017, tribal gaming revenue accounts for over 44% of all gaming revenue in the U.S. It’s grown 300x since 1988. In early 2018, six more tribes became federally recognized.
All signs seem to indicate that the future of tribal gaming is bright. Tribal casinos are opening in many states right alongside non-tribal casinos during the last few years. As I have mentioned elsewhere, it is a dynamic time of change in the U.S. gaming industry.
There’s also a bit of synergy worth mentioning regarding a sort of tension within a state’s gaming industry. The IGRA is a federal law designed to support tribes. If a state allows casino gambling and has a federally recognized tribe, the tribe will most likely attempt to negotiate a tribal-state compact.
It is nearly impossible to prevent tribal casinos if a state does not entirely prohibit gambling, perhaps by the state constitution. If bingo is legal, for example, then tribal casinos can offer Class II competition slot machines without a tribal-state compact.
The state may object. There may be court injunctions filed based on pertinent legal precedents, as Texas did for years. But, it is possible because the IGRA legally provides tribes that opportunity.
My points here are this: As non-tribal gaming grows within a state, so will tribal gaming if that state has a federally recognized tribe. And, if the tribe opens a Class II tribal casino or negotiates a Class III tribal-state compact, then non-tribal casinos will want to open.
Indian Reservation Casino Florida
Why? Because it’s all about market share. If tribal casinos become the go-to place for the state’s gamblers, the market can quickly become saturated. Other casinos might not survive if they try to open in a state with a mature gaming industry. Iowa is an excellent example of this scenario in action.
Do Casinos Have To Be On Indian Reservations Near Me
Summary of American Indian Tribal Casinos
Tribal gaming is involved, even sophisticated, in terms of legal, regulatory, political, and economic factors. Consequently, it is one of the least understood segments of the U.S. gaming industry.
Indian Reservation Casinos Near Me
Related Articles from Professor Slots
Indian Casinos By State
Other Articles from Professor Slots
- Previous: Miami Valley Gaming Racetrack Racino Review in Southwestern Ohio
- Next: Online Resource: A State-By-State Slot Machine Casino Gambling Series
Have fun, be safe, and make good choices!
By Jon H. Friedl, Jr. Ph.D., President
Jon Friedl, LLC
By Jon H. Friedl, Jr. Ph.D., President
Jon Friedl, LLC