Are tribal casinos sovereign or not?

[bcubed72]

During a two-year stay in Farmington, NM, I occasionally made the half-hour trek onto the Ute reservation to their casino. What I noticed was that the table limit for blackjack was $5, and alcohol was not allowed on the casino floor, both ostensibly due to Colorado law. (This was pre-poker for me, so I can't describe the rules regarding that).

So if I understand correctly, Indian gambling is allowed because the reservations are considered to be sovereign (which also seems to allow cheap smokes). However, they are nonetheless required to comply with state regulations!

So, what I'm wondering is, are they sovereign or not? Saying "they're sovereign enough to have gambling but not enough to have high stakes or serve alcohol" doesn't seem to make any sense to me.

P.S. I can see how this might be a delicate issue and I might have opened a can of worms; I hope we can all be civil.

[AngusThermopyle]

Some info

[DayTripping]

George Bush has explained this issue before.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UWiytuW79vU

[cpk]

Rules concerning Indian sovereignty are incredibly complicated and vary considerably. The deal with alcohol is that the Federal Government has required all recognized tribes to comply with the alcohol laws in their states--this comes from the fact that alcohol abuse is absolutely endemic on Indian reservations.

Further, as the link posted above indicates, tribes are required to negotiate a gambling compact with the state and comply with the terms of the compact. It becomes a game of "what will you agree to in order to stay out of court?"

[flafishy]

That Bush clip is great. A radio host here in South Florida loves to play that clip.

The Seminoles' Hard Rock Casino in Hollywood, FL, is embroiled in a controversy now after they reneged on paying a guy off on a $250,000 jackpot he won. The casino made a big deal when he won it earlier this week, having him sign promotional contracts, presenting him with a giant cardboard check. But then the next day they told him there was a machine malfunction and they're not going to give him the money.

He's hired a lawyer, of course, but the state can do absolutely nothing and the TV lawyers are saying the courts won't touch it because of the Seminoles' sovereign status.

It appears the best he can hope for is that the Seminoles will give him some kind of settlement to avoid the nasty publicity.

[jaustin]

[ QUOTE ]
George Bush has explained this issue before.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UWiytuW79vU

[/ QUOTE ]

Why are people still posting in this thread? Case closed, thanks Mr. President

[Dozer64]

[ QUOTE ]

The Seminoles' Hard Rock Casino in Hollywood, FL, is embroiled in a controversy now after they reneged on paying a guy off on a $250,000 jackpot he won. The casino made a big deal when he won it earlier this week, having him sign promotional contracts, presenting him with a giant cardboard check. But then the next day they told him there was a machine malfunction and they're not going to give him the money.

He's hired a lawyer, of course, but the state can do absolutely nothing and the TV lawyers are saying the courts won't touch it because of the Seminoles' sovereign status.


[/ QUOTE ]

Here is the story.

Click here

He is a 53 yr old struggling actor with a slot problem and some fvcked up glasses. Looks like he really, really needed the money.

[foolamongfish]

hasn't something like this happened in vegas and AC also in the past few years... ? If they can prove some form of malfunction, i think the player has very little to go with, seminoles or not

[michiganlaw]

[ QUOTE ]


So if I understand correctly, Indian gambling is allowed because the reservations are considered to be sovereign (which also seems to allow cheap smokes). However, they are nonetheless required to comply with state regulations!


[/ QUOTE ]

This is a common misnomer. Casinos established on a federal land grant to an Indian tribe are not subject to federal or state regulation. One caveat: (1) if a state does not allow any gaming, then the indian reservation is not allowed to engage in gaming. In the context of Indian gaming, this means that if the state totally prohibited gaming by all persons, organizations and entities then state law could be used to curtail Indian gaming.

Thus, in Colorado if a casino is located on an Indian reservation they are NOT subject to the state $5 max rule. This is not to say that the indian casino will not impose a $5 max rule themselves. One can imagine why a casino would want a $5 max rule...it would ensure steady, consistent earnings revenue with virtually no risk of one or two high rollers getting lucky against the house (which risk exists when there are higher or no limits imposed).