## Facts

- Several tribes authorized to conduct Class II gaming under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) offered pull-tabs on tribal lands.
- The tribes leased a device from Diamond Game Enterprises known as the “Magical Irish Instant Bingo Dispenser System” (the Machine) to dispense pull-tabs.
- A player inserted money, pressed “DISPENSE,” and the Machine cut and dispensed a preprinted pull-tab from a roll.
- The pull-tab’s winning or losing status was predetermined by the preprinted card; the Machine did not generate outcomes.
- The Machine could optionally verify whether a dispensed card was a winner by scanning a barcode.
- The National Indian Gaming Commission (NIGC) informed the tribes that using the Machine constituted unauthorized Class III gaming rather than Class II gaming.
- Federal prosecutors threatened enforcement under the Johnson Act, which prohibits certain “gambling devices” in Indian country.
- The tribes and Diamond Game sought declaratory relief that the Machine was a permissible Class II “technologic aid” under IGRA and not an illegal Johnson Act “gambling device.”
- The district court granted declaratory judgment for plaintiffs; the federal defendants appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether pull-tabs conducted with the Machine remain Class II gaming as a permissible “technologic aid” under IGRA, or instead constitute Class III gaming.
2. Whether the Machine is a prohibited “gambling device” under the Johnson Act, and whether IGRA exempts Class II technologic aids from Johnson Act coverage in this context.
3. Whether mootness or collateral estoppel barred adjudication of the dispute.

## Decision

- The court rejected the appellees’ threshold defenses of mootness and collateral estoppel and reached the merits.
- The court affirmed the declaratory judgment that the Machine functioned as a permissible technologic aid to Class II pull-tab gaming under IGRA because it dispensed preprinted cards and did not determine winners or losers.
- The court held that IGRA impliedly exempts bona fide Class II technologic aids from the Johnson Act when used to conduct lawful Class II gaming, so the Machine was not prohibited in that use.
- The court emphasized the exemption’s limited scope: it does not protect devices that independently determine outcomes or otherwise constitute Class III-style electronic gambling.

## Legal Principles

- Under IGRA, Class II gaming includes bingo and pull-tabs “whether or not electronic, computer, or other technologic aids are used in connection therewith,” so long as the underlying game remains Class II.
- Classification under IGRA turns on the device’s role in the game, not on appearance or resemblance to slot machines.
- A device is a Class II technologic aid when it assists the play of a Class II game without independently generating or determining winning outcomes.
- Reading the Johnson Act to criminalize all gambling-related devices in Indian country would conflict with IGRA’s express authorization of technologic aids for Class II games; IGRA is therefore construed to create an implied exemption for such aids when used for lawful Class II gaming.
- The implied exemption is confined to genuine Class II technologic aids and does not extend to independent electronic gambling machines properly treated as Class III gaming.

## Conclusion

The Tenth Circuit held that a machine that merely dispenses preprinted pull-tabs (and optionally verifies them) is a permissible Class II technologic aid under IGRA, and that IGRA impliedly exempts such Class II aids from Johnson Act gambling-device prohibitions when used in connection with lawful Class II gaming.


Seneca-Cayuga Tribe of Okla. v. Nat’l Indian Gaming Comm’n, 327 F.3d 1019 (10th Cir. 2003)