## Facts

- The Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head (Aquinnah) asserted aboriginal title to lands on Martha’s Vineyard, leading to a settlement implemented by federal and state settlement statutes (the Settlement Act framework).
- Under the settlement, specified “Settlement Lands” were transferred or confirmed as tribal lands, including parcels held in trust by the United States for the Tribe.
- The settlement framework provided that the Settlement Lands would be subject to the civil and criminal laws, ordinances, and jurisdiction of Massachusetts and the Town of Gay Head (now Aquinnah).
- After the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) was enacted, the Tribe proposed operating Class II gaming on its Settlement Lands.
- Massachusetts, the Town of Aquinnah, and a local community association sought to block the gaming facility, arguing (i) the Settlement Act made state gaming laws applicable on the Settlement Lands and (ii) IGRA did not apply because the Tribe allegedly did not exercise enough governmental power over the lands.
- The district court granted summary judgment against the Tribe, concluding IGRA did not apply and that state gaming laws controlled.
- The Tribe appealed; the United States participated as amicus curiae supporting the Tribe.

## Issues

1. Whether the Tribe’s trust Settlement Lands qualify as “Indian lands” under IGRA, including whether the Tribe “exercise[s] governmental power” over them.
2. Whether IGRA impliedly repealed, to the extent of conflict, the Settlement Act’s application of Massachusetts and local law to the Settlement Lands as to gaming regulation and prohibition.

## Decision

- The First Circuit reversed the summary judgment for Massachusetts, the Town, and the community association.
- The court held the Settlement Lands were “Indian lands” under IGRA because the Tribe sufficiently exercised governmental power over them.
- The court held IGRA partially impliedly repealed the Settlement Act to the extent the Settlement Act would subject tribal gaming on the Settlement Lands to state gaming laws and regulation that conflict with IGRA’s allocation of authority.

## Legal Principles

- Under IGRA, trust land qualifies as “Indian lands” if the tribe exercises governmental power over it; the governmental-power inquiry is functional and does not require a fully developed governmental infrastructure.
- Evidence of tribal governance—such as administering housing and social-service programs, entering agreements with federal agencies, and adopting and enforcing tribal laws and ordinances—can satisfy IGRA’s “exercise governmental power” requirement.
- Repeal by implication is disfavored, but an implied repeal may be found where two federal statutes are in irreconcilable conflict.
- IGRA establishes a comprehensive federal framework for regulating gaming on Indian lands; state gaming prohibitions preserved through earlier settlement legislation cannot control where they conflict with IGRA.
- Where a settlement statute lacks an express clause preserving state authority against later federal enactments, IGRA may preempt conflicting state-law control over tribal gaming through partial implied repeal.

## Conclusion

The First Circuit held that IGRA governed gaming on the Tribe’s trust Settlement Lands because the Tribe exercised sufficient governmental power there, and that IGRA preempted conflicting state gaming restrictions by partially impliedly repealing the settlement framework’s state-law application as to gaming.


Massachusetts v. Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head (Aquinnah), 853 F.3d 618 (1st Cir. 2017)