## Facts

- Multiple federally recognized California tribes sought to conduct Class III casino-style gaming on Indian lands under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA).
- The tribes requested that California negotiate tribal–state compacts authorizing “stand-alone electronic gaming devices” resembling slot machines.
- California, through the Governor and the State, refused to negotiate for those devices, asserting they were prohibited by the California Constitution and criminal statutes.
- The tribes sued in federal district court seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, alleging IGRA imposed a duty on California to negotiate in good faith for the requested gaming.
- The district court granted summary judgment for the tribes, reasoning that California’s allowance of certain gambling activities (e.g., lottery, charitable bingo, and card clubs) made the electronic devices a proper subject of compact negotiations.
- California appealed, and the tribes cross-appealed on related issues.

## Issues

1. Whether IGRA required California to negotiate in good faith over compacts authorizing stand-alone electronic gaming devices that California law prohibited.
2. Whether IGRA’s requirement that Class III gaming occur in a state that “permits such gaming” is satisfied when a state allows some gambling generally, or only when it permits the specific form or class of gaming sought by the tribe.
3. Whether California’s exceptions for other gambling activities effectively meant it “permitted” the electronic gaming devices at issue for IGRA purposes.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s central ruling in favor of the tribes.
- The court held California had no duty under IGRA to negotiate compacts authorizing stand-alone electronic gaming devices that were illegal under California law.
- The court interpreted “permits such gaming” to refer to the specific activity or class of games proposed, not gambling in a generalized sense.
- The court rejected the contention that permitting a state lottery, charitable bingo, or card-room gaming triggered an obligation to negotiate for slot-like electronic devices.
- The court noted that later Eleventh Amendment developments did not affect appellate jurisdiction in this case because California expressly agreed not to assert immunity as a bar.

## Legal Principles

- Under IGRA, a state’s obligation to negotiate a Class III tribal–state compact extends only to forms or classes of gaming that the state “permits … for any purpose by any person, organization, or entity.”
- “Permits such gaming” is construed in a game-specific (or class-specific) manner; allowing some categories of gambling does not require negotiations over different, prohibited categories.
- If state law categorically forbids a particular class of Class III games, IGRA does not compel the state to negotiate over that class for tribal gaming.
- State constitutional and statutory prohibitions on certain casino-style devices can establish that the state does not “permit” that class of gaming for IGRA purposes.
- A state may waive Eleventh Amendment immunity; when waived, immunity does not bar federal jurisdiction over the IGRA-related dispute in that case.

## Conclusion

The court held that IGRA does not force a state to negotiate compacts for a class of Class III gaming the state prohibits outright; because California law barred the requested stand-alone electronic gaming devices, California had no IGRA duty to negotiate for them.


Rumsey Indian Rancheria of Wintun Indians v. Wilson, 64 F.3d 1250 (9th Cir. 1994)