Ruling good for Idaho, tribes

The following editorial, which doesn’t necessarily reflect the views of The Spokesman-Review’s editorial board, appeared Tuesday in the Idaho Statesman in Boise.

Idaho’s lucrative — and voter-approved — tribal gambling industry came up a winner Monday.

The principle of tribal sovereignty also prevailed.

The U.S. Supreme Court came down Monday on the side of Indian tribes that operate casinos on reservations in more than 20 states, including Idaho. The Supreme Court said states can draw a fine but appropriate legal distinction, allowing tribal casinos while blocking other casinos on private land.

The decision is good news for Idaho’s economy, not just reservations. Casinos provide money — and desperately needed jobs — to reservations where unemployment rates once reached a staggering 70 percent. Tribal gambling in Idaho creates some 4,500 jobs worth $83 million a year in wages and earnings, according to a 2002 study by two University of Idaho economists. By generating $250 million in annual sales and nearly $11 million in property and sales taxes, according to the same study, the casinos’ benefits extend beyond reservation borders.

With numbers like this, it’s no surprise that Idaho voters approved a 2002 initiative allowing the tribes to expand gambling operations.

But more germane to the question before the Supreme Court, tribal casinos have solid legal grounding. Indian reservations have the right to develop casinos on reservations. Tribal casinos do not constitute an unfair monopoly, as card clubs and charities argued in their appeal to the Supreme Court. Indian reservations are a unique jurisdictional construct; with that, Congress authorized a unique right to offer gambling.

This is a different legal wrinkle than the recurring constitutional debate over casino gambling in Idaho: the question of whether the tribal casinos offer slot machines forbidden under the state constitution. But had the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against tribal casinos, the decision could have affected tribes in Idaho and other states.

The Supreme Court did not break new legal ground on Monday, the first day of its 2004 term. The court simply refused to second-guess the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which sided with tribes in a California case. Idaho tribes will benefit from Monday’s ruling too.