## Facts

- Idaho and the Coeur d’Alene Tribe entered a Tribal–State Gaming Compact under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) allowing the Tribe to conduct Class III gaming only to the extent permitted by Idaho law and the Compact.
- The Tribe began offering Texas Hold’em poker at its casino on tribal lands.
- Idaho asserted that poker, including Texas Hold’em, is explicitly prohibited by the Idaho Constitution and statutes, and therefore not authorized by the Compact.
- Idaho sued in federal district court seeking to enjoin the Tribe’s operation of Texas Hold’em as gaming conducted in violation of IGRA and the Compact.
- The Tribe moved to dismiss, arguing tribal sovereign immunity barred the suit and that the Compact required arbitration in Idaho state court.
- The district court denied dismissal and entered a preliminary injunction halting Texas Hold’em; the Tribe appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether 25 U.S.C. § 2710(d)(7)(A)(ii) abrogates tribal sovereign immunity and confers federal jurisdiction over a state action to enjoin Class III gaming on Indian lands allegedly conducted in violation of a Tribal–State compact.
2. Whether the Compact’s dispute-resolution provisions required arbitration in Idaho state court and thus barred federal litigation.
3. Whether the district court abused its discretion in granting a preliminary injunction against the Tribe’s Texas Hold’em operations.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit affirmed the denial of the Tribe’s motion to dismiss.
- The court held IGRA abrogates tribal sovereign immunity for suits by a state to enjoin Class III gaming on Indian lands conducted in violation of a Tribal–State compact.
- The court concluded Texas Hold’em was Class III gaming because Idaho law explicitly prohibits poker, preventing classification as Class II under IGRA’s non-banking card game definition.
- The court held the Compact did not make arbitration or a state forum exclusive and did not preclude suit in federal court.
- The Ninth Circuit affirmed the preliminary injunction, finding Idaho showed likely success on the merits, likely irreparable harm to its economic and public-policy interests, a balance of hardships favoring Idaho, and a public interest in enforcing IGRA and the Compact.

## Legal Principles

- IGRA, 25 U.S.C. § 2710(d)(7)(A)(ii), authorizes and permits state-initiated federal actions to enjoin Class III gaming on Indian lands conducted in violation of a Tribal–State compact, and this authorization reflects congressional abrogation of tribal sovereign immunity for such actions.
- A non-banking card game is Class II under IGRA only if it is explicitly authorized by state law, or not explicitly prohibited and played at any location in the state; if explicitly prohibited, the game is treated as Class III (the residual category).
- A compact’s dispute-resolution clause requiring or permitting arbitration does not bar federal litigation absent clear language making arbitration and a state forum exclusive, particularly where IGRA provides a federal enforcement action.
- Preliminary injunctive relief may issue to halt alleged unlawful Class III gaming where the plaintiff shows likely success on the merits, likely irreparable harm, favorable equities, and alignment with the public interest in lawful compact enforcement.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit held that IGRA permits Idaho’s federal suit and abrogates tribal sovereign immunity to enjoin Class III gaming allegedly conducted in violation of a Tribal–State compact, determined that Texas Hold’em was Class III because Idaho explicitly prohibits poker, rejected the Tribe’s forum objections under the Compact, and affirmed a preliminary injunction stopping Texas Hold’em at the tribal casino.


Idaho v. Coeur d'Alene Tribe, 794 F.3d 1039 (9th Cir. 2015)