FEDERAL · 25 U.S.C. · Chapter 29
Findings
25 U.S.C. § 2701
Title25 — Indians
Chapter29 — INDIAN GAMING REGULATION
This text of 25 U.S.C. § 2701 (Findings) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Bluebook
25 U.S.C. § 2701.
Text
The Congress finds that—
(1)numerous Indian tribes have become engaged in or have licensed gaming activities on Indian lands as a means of generating tribal governmental revenue;
(2)Federal courts have held that section 81 of this title requires Secretarial review of management contracts dealing with Indian gaming, but does not provide standards for approval of such contracts;
(3)existing Federal law does not provide clear standards or regulations for the conduct of gaming on Indian lands;
(4)a principal goal of Federal Indian policy is to promote tribal economic development, tribal self-sufficiency, and strong tribal government; and
(5)Indian tribes have the exclusive right to regulate gaming activity on Indian lands if the gaming activity is not specifically prohibited by Federal la
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Gaming Corporation of America Golden Nickel Casinos, Inc. v. Dorsey & Whitney, a Partnership, in Re Dorsey & Whitney, a Partnership
88 F.3d 536 (Eighth Circuit, 1996)
Gallegos v. Pueblo of Tesuque
2002 NMSC 012 (New Mexico Supreme Court, 2002)
Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida
11 F.3d 1016 (Eleventh Circuit, 1994)
Confederated Tribes of Chehalis Reservation v. Johnson
958 P.2d 260 (Washington Supreme Court, 1998)
In Re Indian Gaming Related Cases. Chemehuevi Indian Tribe Elk Valley Rancheria Hoopa Valley Indian Tribe Hopland Band of Pomo Indians Redding Rancheria Smith River Rancheria, and Coyote Valley Band of Pomo Indians v. The State of California
331 F.3d 1094 (Ninth Circuit, 2003)
Artichoke Joe's v. Norton
216 F. Supp. 2d 1084 (E.D. California, 2002)
State of Alabama v. PCI Gaming Authority
801 F.3d 1278 (Eleventh Circuit, 2015)
Cabazon Band of Mission Indians, a Federally Recognized Indian Tribe Sycuan Band of Mission Indians v. Pete Wilson, Governor
37 F.3d 430 (Ninth Circuit, 1994)
North County Community Alliance, Inc. v. Salazar
573 F.3d 738 (Ninth Circuit, 2009)
Wells Fargo Bank, National Ass'n v. Lake of the Torches Economic Development Corp.
658 F.3d 684 (Seventh Circuit, 2011)
American Greyhound Racing, Inc. v. Hull
146 F. Supp. 2d 1012 (D. Arizona, 2001)
Patchak v. Salazar
632 F.3d 702 (D.C. Circuit, 2011)
Citizens against Casino Gambling v. Kempthorne
471 F. Supp. 2d 295 (W.D. New York, 2007)
Kickapoo Tribe of Indians v. Babbitt
827 F. Supp. 37 (District of Columbia, 1993)
State of Texas v. Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of TX
918 F.3d 440 (Fifth Circuit, 2019)
Langley v. Edwards
872 F. Supp. 1531 (W.D. Louisiana, 1995)
CITIZENS AGAIST CAS. GAM., ERIE CTY. v. Kempthorne
471 F. Supp. 2d 295 (W.D. New York, 2007)
Calvello v. Yankton Sioux Tribe
1998 SD 107 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1998)
Yavapai-prescott Indian Tribe v. Scott
117 F.3d 1107 (Ninth Circuit, 1997)
United States v. Jeff Livingston
725 F.3d 1141 (Ninth Circuit, 2013)
Source Credit
History
(Pub. L. 100–497, §2, Oct. 17, 1988, 102 Stat. 2467.)
Editorial Notes
Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries
Short Title
Pub. L. 100–497, §1, Oct. 17, 1988, 102 Stat. 2467, provided: "That this Act [enacting this chapter and sections 1166 to 1168 of Title 18, Crimes and Criminal Procedure] may be cited as the 'Indian Gaming Regulatory Act'."
Short Title
Pub. L. 100–497, §1, Oct. 17, 1988, 102 Stat. 2467, provided: "That this Act [enacting this chapter and sections 1166 to 1168 of Title 18, Crimes and Criminal Procedure] may be cited as the 'Indian Gaming Regulatory Act'."
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Bluebook (online)
25 U.S.C. § 2701, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/usc/25/2701.