## Facts

- The Cabazon Band of Mission Indians and the Morongo Band of Mission Indians occupy reservations in Riverside County, California.
- Under federally approved tribal ordinances, each Tribe operated high-stakes bingo on its reservation; Cabazon also operated a card club offering draw poker and other card games.
- The gaming operations were open to the public and attracted predominantly non-Indian patrons; revenues supported reservation employment and tribal governmental services.
- California sought to enforce its bingo statute, which allowed bingo only under limited conditions, and Riverside County sought to enforce its bingo ordinance and an ordinance banning draw poker and other specified card games.
- The Tribes sued in federal district court for declaratory and injunctive relief, asserting that state and county regulation of reservation gaming was barred by federal law and tribal sovereignty.

## Issues

1. Whether Public Law 280 authorizes California and Riverside County to enforce their gambling laws on tribal reservations when the state permits the gambling activity but regulates it.
2. Whether the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970 authorizes state or local enforcement of gambling restrictions on reservations by incorporating state gambling law into federal criminal law.
3. Whether, absent explicit congressional authorization, state interests in regulating reservation gaming override federal policy and tribal interests in self-government and economic development.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court affirmed the Ninth Circuit in a 6–3 decision (Justice White).
- Public Law 280 did not permit enforcement of California’s and the County’s gambling restrictions because the relevant laws were civil/regulatory, not criminal/prohibitory, given that California generally permitted bingo subject to limits.
- The Organized Crime Control Act did not expand state enforcement power on reservations; enforcing federal gambling crimes is a federal function.
- State and local regulation was preempted because federal policy favoring tribal self-government and economic development, together with tribal interests in reservation revenue, outweighed the asserted state interest in controlling gambling and preventing crime absent clear congressional authorization.

## Legal Principles

- Under Public Law 280, a state may enforce on-reservation only those laws that are criminal/prohibitory in nature; civil/regulatory schemes are not enforceable as such on tribal land.
- A regulatory scheme does not become “criminal/prohibitory” for Public Law 280 purposes merely because it is backed by criminal penalties.
- Federal statutes that criminalize certain conduct by reference to state law do not, without clear authorization, delegate enforcement authority to states on Indian reservations.
- In Indian law preemption analysis, absent express congressional consent, courts weigh state interests against federal and tribal interests; strong federal policy supporting tribal self-government and economic development can preempt state regulation.
- Practical rule: if a state forbids a form of gaming as a matter of policy, tribes may not offer it; if the state permits the form of gaming (even with restrictions), state regulation generally cannot be applied to reservation gaming absent congressional authorization.

## Conclusion

The Court held that California and Riverside County could not apply their gambling regulations to tribal gaming on reservations because the laws were regulatory rather than prohibitory under Public Law 280, federal law did not confer state enforcement authority, and federal and tribal interests in tribal self-government and economic development preempted state control absent explicit congressional approval.


California v. Cabazon Band of Mission Indians, 480 U.S. 202 (1987)