State v. Ysleta Del Sur Pueblo

• Citation: 955 F.3d 408
• Decision Date: 02 April 2020
• Docket Number: No. 19-50400,19-50400
• Parties: STATE of Texas, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. YSLETA DEL SUR PUEBLO; The Tribal Council; Tribal Governor Michael Silvas or His Successor, Defendants–Appellants.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit

955 F.3d 408

STATE of Texas, Plaintiff–Appellee,

v.YSLETA DEL SUR PUEBLO; The Tribal Council; Tribal Governor Michael Silvas or His Successor, Defendants–Appellants.

No. 19-50400

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

FILED April 2, 2020

REVISED April 3, 2020

Anne Marie Mackin, Benjamin Storey Lyles, Assistant Attorney General, Michael Abrams, Office of the Attorney General, General Litigation Division, Austin, TX, for Plaintiff - Appellee.

Brant Campbell Martin, Attorney, Wick Phillips Gould & Martin, L.L.P., Fort Worth, TX, Joseph Callister, Ethan A. Minshull, Wick Phillips Gould & Martin, L.L.P., Dallas, TX, Paul Merrill Chappell, McGuireWoods, L.L.P., Dallas, TX, for Defendants - Appellants

Before DENNIS, GRAVES, and WILLETT, Circuit Judges.

DON R. WILLETT, Circuit Judge:

For a generation, the State of Texas and a federally recognized Indian tribe, the Ysleta del Sur Pueblo, have litigated the Pueblo’s attempts to conduct various gaming activities on its reservation near El Paso. This latest case poses familiar questions that yield familiar answers: (1) which federal law governs the legality of the Pueblo’s gaming operations—the Restoration Act (which bars gaming that violates Texas law) or the more permissive Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (which "establish[es] ... Federal standards for gaming on Indian lands"); and (2) whether the district court correctly enjoined the Pueblo’s gaming operations. Our on-point precedent conclusively resolves this case. The Restoration Act controls, the Pueblo’s gaming is prohibited, and we affirm.

I. BACKGROUND

A. The Restoration Act

In 1987, Congress passed and President Reagan signed the Ysleta del Sur Pueblo and Alabama and Coushatta Indian Tribes of Texas Restoration Act.¹ But the Pueblo’s "restoration" came with a catch: In exchange for having its federal trust status restored,² the Pueblo agreed that its gaming activities would comply with Texas law.

Section 107(a) of the Restoration Act is unequivocal:

All gaming activities which are prohibited by the laws of the State of Texas are hereby prohibited on the reservation and on lands of the tribe. Any violation of the prohibition provided in this subsection shall be subject to the same civil and criminal penalties that are provided by the laws of the State of Texas. The provisions of this subsection are enacted in accordance with the tribe’s request in Tribal Resolution No. T.C.-02-86[.]³

The Tribal Resolution is similarly clear. The Pueblo requested that Congress add language to § 107 "which would provide that all gaming, gambling, lottery, or bingo, as defined by the laws and administrative regulations of the State of Texas, shall be prohibited on the Tribe’s reservation or on tribal land." And it committed "to prohibit outright any gambling or bingo in any form on its reservation." Finally, § 107(c) gives Texas a mechanism to enforce the gaming ban: "bringing an action in the courts of the United States to enjoin violations of the provisions of this section."⁴

B. The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act

Not all tribes fall under the Restoration Act. Many tribes conduct gaming operations under the less restrictive structure of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. Enacted one year after the Restoration Act, IGRA aimed to establish uniform standards "to regulate gaming activity on Indian lands if the gaming activity is not specifically prohibited by Federal law and is conducted within a State which does not, as a matter of criminal law and public policy, prohibit such gaming activity."⁵

IGRA defines three classes of gaming, with varying levels of regulation:

• "Class I gaming" includes "social games solely for prizes of minimal value or traditional forms of Indian gaming" associated with "tribal ceremonies or celebrations."⁶ IGRA tribes have "exclusive jurisdiction" over class I gaming.⁷

• "Class II gaming" includes bingo and card games "explicitly authorized" or "not explicitly prohibited" by state law.⁸ But the definition excludes "electronic or electromechanical facsimiles of any game of chance or slot machines of any kind."⁹ IGRA tribes may regulate class II gaming provided that they issue a self-regulatory ordinance approved by the National Indian Gaming Commission, which administers IGRA.¹⁰

• "Class III gaming" includes all forms of gaming not included in class I or II, such as slot machines, roulette, and blackjack.¹¹ Class III gaming is prohibited unless the tribe obtains federal and state approval.¹²

C. The Pueblo’s Gaming Activities & Prior Litigation

Since obtaining federal status under the Restoration Act, the Pueblo has repeatedly pursued gaming, and the State of Texas has repeatedly opposed it:

• Ysleta I : In 1993, the Pueblo sued Texas, arguing that the State refused to negotiate a compact in good faith under IGRA that would permit Class III gaming.¹³ We disagreed, explaining that "the Tribe has already made its ‘compact’ with the State of Texas, and the Restoration Act embodies that compact."¹⁴ We concluded "not only that the Restoration Act survives today but also that it—and not IGRA—would govern the determination of whether gaming activities proposed by the [ ] Pueblo are allowed under Texas law, which functions as surrogate federal law" on the lands of Restoration Act tribes.¹⁵

• Ysleta II : In 1999, Texas sued the Pueblo to enjoin gaming on the reservation.¹⁶ The district court granted summary judgment for the State.¹⁷ It concluded that the Pueblo’s gaming did not comply with Texas laws and regulations and forbade the Pueblo from engaging in " ‘regulated’ gaming activities unless it complies with the pertinent regulations."¹⁸ After considering equitable factors, the district court permanently enjoined the Pueblo from continuing its gaming activities.¹⁹ We upheld the injunction.²⁰

• Other Litigation : Further litigation ensued over the next two decades, including two determinations that the Pueblo was in contempt of the injunction.²¹

D. The Current Lawsuit

After a court enjoined the Pueblo’s illegal "sweepstakes" gaming,²² the Pueblo announced that it was "transitioning to bingo."²³ The State inspected the Pueblo’s Speaking Rock Entertainment Center and found live-called bingo and thousands of machines that "look and sound like Las-Vegas-style slot machines" available to the public round the clock.

Texas sued to enjoin the Pueblo from operating these gaming activities, arguing that they violate Texas laws and regulations. The district court agreed and granted the State’s motion for summary judgment. The Pueblo moved for reconsideration. Two weeks later, we reaffirmed in Alabama-Coushatta "that the Restoration Act and the Texas law it invokes—and not IGRA—govern the permissibility of gaming operations" on lands of tribes bound by the Restoration Act.²⁴ We also noted that "[t]hough Ysleta I arose in the context of the Pueblo’s trying to conduct IGRA class III gaming, Ysleta I does not suggest that the conflict between the Restoration Act and IGRA is limited to class III gaming."²⁵

Soon after Alabama-Coushatta , the district court denied the Pueblo’s motion for reconsideration and permanently enjoined the Pueblo’s operations. But the district court granted the Pueblo’s motion to stay the injunction pending appeal, declaring the permanent injunction "effective ninety (90) days after all opportunities for appeal have been exhausted."

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

We review a trial court’s grant of a permanent injunction for abuse of discretion.²⁶ A district court abuses its discretion if it (1) "relies on clearly erroneous factual findings" or "erroneous conclusions of law" when deciding to grant the injunction, or (2) "misapplies the factual or legal conclusions when fashioning its injunctive relief."²⁷ "Under this standard, the district court’s ruling is entitled to deference."²⁸ "[B]ut we review de novo any questions of law underlying the district court’s decision."²⁹

III. DISCUSSION

As in previous cases, the Pueblo avers that IGRA, not the Restoration Act, governs its ability to conduct gaming on its reservation. As in previous cases, we disagree.

A. The Restoration Act governs the Pueblo’s gaming activity.

Texas insists that the Restoration Act—not IGRA—controls. The Pueblo argues that the two laws can be read and applied harmoniously, but if not, IGRA controls. The district court determined that under our precedent the Restoration Act and IGRA are incompatible and that the specific provisions of the former prevail over the general provisions of the latter. The district court is correct.

Ysleta I— a case between the same two parties—is squarely on point. In Ysleta I , we determined that "(1) the Restoration Act and IGRA establish different regulatory regimes with regard to gaming,"³⁰ and "(2) the Restoration Act prevails over IGRA when gaming activities proposed by the Ysleta del Sur Pueblo are at issue."³¹

In other words, the Restoration Act "govern[s] the determination of whether gaming activities proposed by the [ ] Pueblo are allowed under Texas law, which functions as surrogate federal law."³²

Just last year—twenty-five years after Ysleta I —we reaffirmed its reasoning and conclusion in Alabama-Coushatta .³³ And we re-reaffirm today³⁴ : The Restoration Act and IGRA erect fundamentally different regimes, and the Restoration Act—plus the Texas gaming laws and regulations it federalizes—provides the framework for determining the legality of gaming activities on the Pueblo’s lands.

B. Under the Restoration Act, all of Texas’s gaming restrictions operate as federal law on the Pueblo’s reservations.

We held in Ysleta I and reaffirmed in Alabama-Coushatta that Texas gaming law "functions as surrogate federal law" on the land of Restoration Act tribes.³⁵ Indeed, the Pueblo agreed to the Restoration Act’s gaming provisions as a condition necessary to gain the benefits of federal trust status. In this case, the Pueblo argues that § 107(a) of the Restoration Act does not bar its bingo activities because Texas regulates rather...