## Facts

- The Seminole Tribe of Florida planned to operate a high-stakes bingo hall on its reservation as a revenue source.
- The Tribe contracted with a private limited partnership to build and operate the facility in exchange for a percentage of profits as management fees.
- Florida’s bingo statute, Fla. Stat. § 849.093, allowed bingo only for certain qualifying organizations and imposed restrictions on operations and prizes.
- The Tribe’s planned operation would not comply with § 849.093’s limits on permissible operators and game conditions.
- The Sheriff of Broward County informed the Tribe he would arrest individuals for violations of § 849.093 if the bingo operation proceeded.
- The Tribe filed a federal action seeking declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent enforcement of § 849.093 on the reservation.
- The district court, on stipulated facts and cross-motions for summary judgment, held § 849.093 civil/regulatory (not criminal/prohibitory), enjoined enforcement on the reservation, and entered judgment for the Tribe.

## Issues

1. Whether Florida’s bingo statute, Fla. Stat. § 849.093, is criminal/prohibitory or civil/regulatory for purposes of state authority under Public Law 280.
2. If the statute is civil/regulatory, whether Public Law 280 permits Florida officials to enforce it against tribal bingo operations on the reservation.

## Decision

- The Fifth Circuit affirmed the judgment for the Tribe.
- The court held that § 849.093 is civil/regulatory rather than criminal/prohibitory.
- Because Public Law 280 does not authorize states to apply civil/regulatory schemes to tribal conduct in Indian country, Florida lacked authority to enforce § 849.093 on the reservation.
- The injunction barring the sheriff from enforcing § 849.093 against the Tribe’s reservation bingo operations was upheld.
- A dissent would have classified the statute as criminal/prohibitory and enforceable under Public Law 280.

## Legal Principles

- Under Public Law 280, a state may enforce criminal/prohibitory laws in Indian country covered by the statute, but it may not impose civil/regulatory regimes on tribal activity.
- The civil/regulatory versus criminal/prohibitory inquiry focuses on the law’s overall purpose and effect: whether the state generally permits the activity subject to controls (regulatory) or broadly forbids it as against public policy (prohibitory).
- The inclusion of penal sanctions is not determinative; a statute can remain civil/regulatory if it primarily licenses, limits, and supervises an activity the state permits in some form.
- A statute that affirmatively permits bingo for defined groups under specified conditions is characteristic of regulation, not a categorical prohibition.

## Conclusion

The court held that Florida’s bingo statute functioned as a regulatory scheme rather than a prohibition, so Public Law 280 did not empower Florida officials to enforce the statute against the Seminole Tribe’s reservation bingo operations, and the injunction against enforcement was properly affirmed.


Seminole Tribe of Fla. v. Butterworth, 658 F.2d 310 (5th Cir. 1981)