New Strategy Has Complex Background

Several complicated court cases provide a background for a proposed assault on slot machines at tribal casinos.

While the federal government has been suing the Spokane Tribe for four years in an effort to ban casino-style gambling, the Colville Confederated Tribes won a lawsuit against Washington state in 1993.

The U.S. attorney’s office argues Spokane tribal casinos are illegal because the tribe doesn’t have a regulatory agreement with

the state as required by the federal Indian Gaming Regulatory Act.

Tribal governments have sovereignty similar to that of state governments, but both are subject to federal law within constitutional limits.

When the Indian gaming act was passed in 1988, it allowed tribes to sue state governments in federal court if states refused to negotiate casino regulatory agreements with tribes. The Spokane Tribe claims Washington refuses to negotiate, but the tribe can’t sue because of a 1996 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that said states are immune from tribal lawsuits.

So far, only the Colville tribal government has successfully argued that, without the remedy of a lawsuit, it can’t be forced to obtain state approval for its casinos. Neither the state nor the Colvilles appealed that 1993 ruling by U.S. District Judge Frem Nielsen, so the decision sets no precedent for any other case.

Now, U.S. Attorney Jim Connelly is arguing that slot machines are illegal under a different federal law - with or without a state regulatory agreement.