## Facts

- Several federally recognized tribes operated paper pull-tabs, a game expressly treated as class II gaming under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA).
- The tribes adopted an electronic pull-tabs game played through electronic terminals.
- The tribes conceded the electronic game was identical in play, rules, mechanics, and odds to the paper pull-tabs game, differing only in electronic presentation.
- IGRA divides Indian gaming into: class I (traditional/ceremonial), class II (including bingo, certain card games, and pull-tabs, including certain “electronic, computer, or other technologic aids”), and class III (all other gaming, including “electronic or electromechanical facsimiles of any game of chance”).
- The National Indian Gaming Commission (NIGC) determined the electronic pull-tabs device was a class III “electronic facsimile” of the class II paper game, rather than a class II game using a technologic aid.
- The tribes sought declaratory relief in federal district court; the district court granted summary judgment to the federal defendants and intervening states, and the tribes appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the NIGC reasonably interpreted IGRA in classifying electronic pull-tabs as a class III “electronic facsimile,” rather than a class II game using an electronic aid.
2. Whether any ambiguity in IGRA’s use of “facsimile” required application of the canon that statutes benefiting Indians are construed in favor of tribes.

## Decision

- The D.C. Circuit affirmed the grant of summary judgment for the federal defendants and intervenor states.
- The court held the NIGC reasonably classified the tribes’ electronic pull-tabs as a class III “electronic facsimile” under IGRA.
- The court rejected the argument that “facsimile” was ambiguous in the manner asserted by the tribes and declined to apply the Indian canon to override the statutory scheme and the agency’s reasonable construction.

## Legal Principles

- Under IGRA, an electronic device that reproduces a game of chance in electronic form may be treated as a class III “electronic or electromechanical facsimile,” even if the electronic version preserves the underlying game’s rules and odds.
- The distinction between a class II “technologic aid” and a class III “electronic facsimile” turns on whether the technology merely assists play of a class II game or instead constitutes the electronic replication of the game itself.
- Legislative history referencing “fundamental characteristics” does not narrow “facsimile” to only devices that alter a game’s essential features when the statutory text classifies electronic facsimiles separately from technologic aids.
- The Indian canon of construction does not displace clear statutory text or a reasonable agency interpretation within the agency’s delegated authority.
- Courts may defer to the administering agency’s reasonable interpretation of IGRA’s class II/class III boundary when consistent with the statute’s text and structure.

## Conclusion

The court upheld the NIGC’s determination that electronic pull-tabs are class III “electronic facsimiles” under IGRA, confirming that a full electronic reproduction of a class II game can trigger class III regulation and associated compacting requirements.


Cabazon Band of Mission Indians v. Nat’l Indian Gaming Comm’n, 14 F.3d 633 (D.C. Cir. 1994)