## Facts

- The Mashantucket Pequot Tribe, a federally recognized tribe in Connecticut, sought to conduct class III gaming (casino-type games) on its reservation under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA), 25 U.S.C. § 2701 et seq.
- IGRA allows class III gaming on Indian lands only if (1) authorized by tribal ordinance, (2) conducted in a state that “permits such gaming for any purpose by any person, organization, or entity,” and (3) conducted pursuant to a tribal–state compact. 25 U.S.C. § 2710(d)(1).
- Connecticut generally prohibited “games of chance,” but allowed certain casino-type games (e.g., blackjack, poker, roulette) in tightly regulated “Las Vegas nights” and similar events operated by nonprofit organizations for fundraising.
- The Tribe requested compact negotiations with Connecticut to allow full-scale casino gaming.
- The State refused to negotiate about casino-style games, asserting that Connecticut law prohibited such gaming except in narrow charitable contexts and that IGRA therefore did not require negotiations.
- After more than 180 days without a compact, the Tribe sued in federal district court under 25 U.S.C. § 2710(d)(7), seeking enforcement of IGRA’s negotiation framework.
- The district court granted summary judgment for the Tribe, concluding Connecticut’s partial authorization of the games triggered IGRA’s duty to negotiate in good faith; the State appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether Connecticut “permits such gaming for any purpose” under 25 U.S.C. § 2710(d)(1)(B) when it allows casino-type games only in limited, regulated charitable settings.
2. If Connecticut “permits” such games, whether IGRA obligates the State to negotiate in good faith toward a tribal–state compact for class III gaming.

## Decision

- The Second Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the Tribe.
- Connecticut “permits such gaming for any purpose” because it authorizes the relevant class III games in some lawful circumstances; the games are not completely prohibited.
- Because the “permits” condition was satisfied, IGRA required Connecticut to negotiate in good faith upon the Tribe’s request. 25 U.S.C. § 2710(d)(3)(A).
- The State’s refusal to negotiate at all regarding those games violated IGRA’s negotiation requirement, permitting judicial enforcement under § 2710(d)(7).

## Legal Principles

- Under IGRA, a state “permits” a form of class III gaming if state law authorizes that gaming in any lawful context; the statute does not require broad or commercial legalization.
- A state’s partial authorization of a gaming category constitutes regulation rather than prohibition for IGRA purposes; only a complete ban avoids IGRA’s compact-negotiation regime for that category.
- State assertions of an overall anti-gambling public policy do not defeat IGRA’s “permits” inquiry when state law affirmatively authorizes the relevant games under specified conditions.
- When the “permits” condition is met, the state must negotiate in good faith with the tribe to enter a class III compact, and a tribe may sue to enforce that duty under 25 U.S.C. § 2710(d)(7).

## Conclusion

Because Connecticut law allowed the same casino-type games in limited charitable settings, the State “permitted” those games within the meaning of IGRA and was required to negotiate in good faith with the Tribe toward a class III gaming compact.


Mashantucket Pequot Tribe v. Connecticut, 913 F.2d 1024 (2d Cir. 1990)