Court case

California v. Cabazon Band of Mission Indians

State and county gambling laws could not be enforced against tribal bingo and card games, because they conflicted with federal and tribal interests.

Citation
480 U.S. 202 (1987)
Court
U.S. Supreme Court
Year
1987
Nations
Cabazon and Morongo Bands
Treaty at issue
none
Effect on land rights
advanced

What happened

The Cabazon and Morongo Bands of Mission Indians occupy reservations in Riverside County, California. The Cabazon Reservation was first set apart for the Cabazon Indians by Executive Order in 1876, and in 1891 Congress declared both reservations for the "sole use and benefit" of the Bands. Each Band ran bingo games under a federally approved tribal ordinance. The games were open to the public and played mostly by non-Indians. The Cabazon Band also ran a card club.

California tried to apply its bingo statute to the Bands, and Riverside County tried to apply its bingo ordinance and its ban on draw poker and other card games. The Bands went to federal court. They won, and the Supreme Court affirmed.

The Court held that California's bingo law regulated gambling instead of prohibiting it, so Public Law 280 did not let the state enforce it on reservations. The Organized Crime Control Act did not either. State law is pre-empted when it interferes with federal and tribal interests, and the Court found the state's interest in keeping out organized crime was not enough to override the federal interest in tribal self-sufficiency. The Court noted that the tribal games provided the sole source of revenue for the operation of the tribal governments.

In a later case, the Supreme Court wrote that Congress adopted the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) in response to Cabazon.

Summarized with AI assistance from 3 sources and checked against their words; not yet reviewed by historians or by the nations. Report an error

What the sources say, and how this was checked

Well supported by the sources below.

  1. State jurisdiction is pre-empted if it interferes or is incompatible with federal and tribal interests reflected in federal lawCalifornia v. Cabazon Band of Mission Indians, 480 U.S. 202 (1987) (U.S. Reports, Library of Congress)
  2. the tribal games provide the sole source of revenues for the operation of the tribal governmentsCalifornia v. Cabazon Band of Mission Indians, 480 U.S. 202 (1987) (U.S. Reports, Library of Congress)
  3. Congress adopted IGRA in response to this Court's decision in California v. Cabazon Band of Mission IndiansMichigan v. Bay Mills Indian Community, 572 U.S. 782 (2014) (U.S. Reports, Library of Congress)

Research notes. Public Law 280 and the Organized Crime Control Act are described as the Court characterized them. The IGRA link comes from Michigan v. Bay Mills (2014), not the Cabazon opinion. The Ysleta del Sur Pueblo v. Texas (2022) reference in the old text was removed as unsourced.

Who is doing the work

Native legal and land defense, nationally

Gifts go straight to each organization; this atlas takes nothing. Listing is not endorsement: how organizations are listed.

Connections

Links marked “suggested” were matched automatically by name or date and have not yet been reviewed by a person.

Doctrine applied 3

Nations named 2

Policy era 1

Answered by 1

Sources

  1. supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/480/202/legal text copy
The record’s fields
Holding
California could not enforce its bingo and card-room laws on reservations: Public Law 280 does not give states regulatory power and state interests did not outweigh federal and tribal interests. Led to IGRA (1988).
Kind
Court case
Confidence
High

Correct this record