## Facts

- California generally prohibited casino-style Class III gaming by non-tribal entities, including card clubs and charities.
- After disputes over tribal gaming initiatives and state constitutional limits, California voters approved Proposition 1A, amending the state constitution to allow certain casino-style games only on Indian lands pursuant to tribal-state compacts.
- California entered into numerous tribal-state gaming compacts authorizing Class III gaming on tribal lands, and the Secretary of the Interior approved those compacts under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA).
- Non-Indian card clubs and charitable gaming organizations sued federal and state officials, alleging economic and legal harm from being barred under state law from offering the same casino-style games authorized for tribes.
- Plaintiffs challenged Proposition 1A and the compacts as (1) inconsistent with IGRA and (2) violating equal protection under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.
- The district court granted summary judgment to the federal and state defendants, and plaintiffs appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether California “permits” the relevant Class III games within the meaning of IGRA, 25 U.S.C. § 2710(d)(1)(B), when state law authorizes those games only on Indian lands through tribal-state compacts.
2. Whether limiting authorization for Class III casino-style gaming to federally recognized tribes on tribal lands, while prohibiting non-tribal entities from offering the same games, violates equal protection.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for defendants.
- The court held that Proposition 1A and the tribal-state compacts are consistent with IGRA’s Class III requirements.
- The court held that Proposition 1A and the compacts do not violate equal protection under the Fifth or Fourteenth Amendments.

## Legal Principles

- IGRA’s requirement that Class III gaming occur in a state that “permits such gaming” is satisfied when the state’s legal framework allows the game type, even if the state confines that authorization to tribal lands through compacts.
- IGRA reflects cooperative federalism: states may regulate the scope and location of tribal gaming through the compacting process while furthering IGRA’s goals of tribal economic development and self-government.
- Preferences benefiting federally recognized tribes in this context are treated as political, not racial, classifications when tied to the federal-tribal relationship and Congress’s authority over Indian affairs.
- Because the classification is political and concerns economic regulation rather than a fundamental right, rational-basis review applies.
- Limiting Class III gaming to tribal lands through compacts is rationally related to legitimate governmental interests, including promoting tribal self-sufficiency and controlling the scope and impacts of gambling.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit upheld California’s constitutional and compacting scheme that authorizes Class III casino-style gaming only on Indian lands, concluding it complies with IGRA and survives rational-basis equal protection review as a political classification connected to federal Indian policy and legitimate state regulatory interests.


Artichoke Joe’s Cal. Grand Casino v. Norton, 353 F.3d 712 (9th Cir. 2003)