Artichoke Joe's California Grand Casino v. Norton

353 F.3d 712 (2003)

From our private database of 46,300+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Artichoke Joe’s California Grand Casino v. Norton

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
353 F.3d 712 (2003)

Facts

The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) gave states some regulatory authority over gaming on Indian tribal lands. Under IGRA, class III gaming (e.g., high-stakes gambling and slot machines) was permissible on tribal lands only if (1) the tribe’s governing body authorized the gaming; (2) gaming was located in a state that “permit[ted] such gaming for any purpose by any person, organization, or entity”; and (3) the tribe and state had entered into a tribal-state compact approved by the US Secretary of the Interior. After IGRA was enacted, certain California tribes tried to negotiate compacts with the state for class III gaming on their reservations. The tribes wanted to offer live banked or percentage card games and standalone electronic gaming machines, which were prohibited under California law. Then-governor Pete Wilson’s administration refused to negotiate with the tribes regarding the desired class III gaming. Subsequently, a coalition of tribes drafted Proposition 5, a ballot measure requiring the state to enter into compacts for banked card games and slot machines. California voters approved Proposition 5 in November 1998, but the California Supreme Court blocked implementation of Proposition 5 in 1999. Before the court’s ruling, new governor Gray Davis had taken office and started negotiating class III gaming compacts with several tribes. Because the court’s ruling on Proposition 5 prevented the state from executing the compacts, Davis’s administration proposed amending California’s Constitution to exempt Indian tribes from the state’s prohibition on the desired types of class III gaming. The Davis administration then executed numerous class III gaming compacts in anticipation of the constitutional amendment. California voters subsequently ratified Proposition 1A, which amended the California Constitution to allow slot machines, lottery games, and banked and percentage card games on tribal lands under compacts with the state. Essentially, Proposition 1A granted Indian tribes a monopoly on class III gaming in California. The secretary of the interior approved the executed compacts, and the compacts went into effect. Non-Indian gaming operators, including Artichoke Joe’s California Grand Casino (collectively, the operators) (plaintiffs), sued state and federal officials (collectively, the officials) (defendants) in federal court, asserting that allowing only Indian tribes to conduct class III gaming in California violated IGRA and the constitutional guarantee of equal protection. The district court granted summary judgment for the officials, and the operators appealed.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Graber, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 815,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,300 briefs - keyed to 988 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership