## Facts

- Diamond Game Enterprises manufactured and distributed a gaming device called the “Lucky Tab II.”
- The Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribes of Oklahoma sought to operate Lucky Tab II on tribal lands under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA), 25 U.S.C. §§ 2701–2719.
- Lucky Tab II is an electromechanical machine that dispenses pre-printed paper pull-tabs from rolls and then displays the pull-tab contents on a video monitor.
- The outcome of each play is predetermined by the paper pull-tab, not generated by the machine’s software.
- Players must physically open the paper pull-tab and verify any winnings with a clerk; the machine does not itself determine or pay prizes.
- IGRA treats certain games (including pull-tabs and similar games) as Class II and allows “electronic, computer, or other technologic aids” in conducting Class II gaming.
- IGRA treats “electronic or electromechanical facsimiles of any game of chance” as Class III, which generally requires a tribal–state compact.
- The district court granted summary judgment to the federal defendants, classifying Lucky Tab II as a Class III “electronic facsimile”; the appellants appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether Lucky Tab II is a Class II “electronic, computer, or other technologic aid” to paper pull-tabs under IGRA.
2. Whether Lucky Tab II instead constitutes a Class III “electronic or electromechanical facsimile” of a game of chance requiring a tribal–state compact.
3. Whether, absent a controlling agency interpretation, the device’s classification should be resolved by statutory text and circuit precedent distinguishing “aids” from “facsimiles.”

## Decision

- The D.C. Circuit reversed the grant of summary judgment for the government.
- The court held that Lucky Tab II is a Class II technologic aid to the paper pull-tab game, not a Class III electronic facsimile.
- The court remanded with instructions to enter summary judgment for Diamond Game Enterprises and the tribal gaming commission.

## Legal Principles

- Under IGRA, the Class II/Class III line turns on whether a device merely assists play of a Class II game that exists independently (an “aid”) or functions as a computerized replacement of the game (a “facsimile”).
- A device is more likely a Class II aid when the game outcome resides in pre-printed game pieces (e.g., paper pull-tabs) rather than being generated or resolved by the machine.
- A device that dispenses Class II paper game pieces and provides an additional display of their contents, without itself determining outcomes or paying prizes, may qualify as a Class II technologic aid.
- In the absence of a controlling interpretation from the agency charged with implementing IGRA, courts may classify devices by applying IGRA’s text and controlling precedent rather than deferring under Chevron.
- Policy concerns about gambling speed or intensity cannot override the statutory classification criteria focused on the device’s functional relationship to the underlying game.

## Conclusion

The D.C. Circuit held that Lucky Tab II remained a paper pull-tab game supported by an electronic aid, and therefore qualified as Class II gaming under IGRA, allowing tribal operation without a tribal–state compact.


Diamond Game Enters., Inc. v. Reno, 230 F.3d 365 (D.C. Cir. 2000)