Appeals court upholds law on Indian gambling

Don Thompson

Tuesday, Dec. 23, 2003 | 8:39 a.m.

SACRAMENTO -- A federal appeals court upheld California's tribal gambling law Monday, ruling that it violates no federal law even though it gives tribes special privileges to operate casinos.

The 9th Appellate Court in San Francisco upheld the July 2002 decision by Sacramento U.S. District Judge David F. Levi, who ruled against four San Francisco Bay area card clubs trying to stop the state's first urban casino in San Pablo.

The ballot measure approved by California voters does indeed give American Indians a monopoly on Nevada-style gaming, which includes slot machines and blackjack, the district and appellate courts agreed.

But both found the state's decision to permit tribal casinos violates neither the federal Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA), nor the U.S. constitutional guarantee of equal protection.

An attorney for the card rooms did not immediately return telephone messages from an Associated Press reporter seeking reaction.

The card rooms' lawsuit challenged Proposition 1A, a statewide initiative passed in March 2000 that amended the state's constitution to permit tribes to operate casinos on their reservations.

The card rooms argued that voters were misled by proposition proponents and never expected that Las Vegas-style casinos would be popping up all over the state, including in urban areas.

The Lytton Band of Pomo Indians, the main target of the suit, is planning to turn a card room across the bay from San Francisco into a casino.

The card clubs, led by Artichoke Joe's in San Bruno, claimed the expansion of tribal casinos in recent years has hurt their business because they can't compete with the Las Vegas-style operations. They said they were fighting for their survival with the court challenges.

The card rooms argued that because Nevada-style gaming is illegal under state law, California must either shut down tribal casinos or allow other casinos to engage in Nevada-style gaming as well.

The district and appellate courts agreed the card rooms have been harmed by the tribal casinos, but ruled there's no violation of federal law.

Both also ruled that giving Indians special gambling rights is not racial discrimination, saying tribes have special privileges because they are regarded as sovereign nations under the law. The courts said Congress was entitled to give the tribes special gambling opportunities as part of its effort to promote economic development.

"In summary, Congress acted rationally in balancing the sovereign interests of tribes and states," the appeals court ruled.

"The state of California, which historically had banned casino gambling altogether, acted rationally in limiting the placement and concentration of Class III gaming operations (slot machines) to Indian lands and in recognizing the sovereign interest of federally recognized Indian tribes to choose a different path on Indian lands."