Idaho v. Coeur d'Alene Tribe

The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) established a framework for regulating gaming on Indian lands. IGRA created three classes of gaming: class I, class II, and class III. Class III gaming was the most heavily regulated. So-called banking card games (e.g., blackjack), in which the house played against other players, were considered class III. Nonbanking card games (e.g., poker), in which players played against each other without house participation, were considered either class II or class III, depending on the state where the gaming occurred. If the state explicitly authorized the gaming or did not explicitly prohibit the gaming, the gaming was class II. Otherwise, the gaming was class III and could be conducted only pursuant to a tribal-state compact authorizing the gaming. The State of Idaho (the state) (plaintiff) and the Coeur d’Alene Tribe (the tribe) (defendant) had executed a tribal-state compact permitting the tribe to offer class III gaming. However, the compact had been interpreted as authorizing only lottery and pari-mutuel betting. In 2014, the state learned that the tribe intended to offer Texas Hold’em poker at the tribe’s casino. The state sued the tribe in federal court, seeking injunctive relief. The tribe moved to dismiss on the grounds of tribal sovereign immunity. The district court denied the motion and issued a preliminary injunction prohibiting the tribe from offering Hold’em. The court found that IGRA had severed tribal immunity because IGRA gave district courts jurisdiction over any action brought by a state or a tribe to enjoin class III gaming activities conducted on Indian lands and in violation of a tribal-state compact. Although the tribe had argued that IGRA did not abrogate tribal immunity because Hold’em was class II gaming, the district court rejected that argument. The court noted that Idaho’s Constitution and gaming law explicitly prohibited poker, which meant that poker games like Hold’em could not be considered class II. The tribe appealed.