The news is usually about Congress trying to close perceived loopholes in the law and tighten restrictions on tribal gaming. So-called ‘reservation shopping’ has prompted the introduction of a number of bills, such as one by Richard Pombo, to prohibit tribes from seeking more land in areas that could prove more profitable. The Chairman of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee, John McCain, is also pushing his bill to restrict off-reservation casinos. However, yesterday it was the turn of the tribes to press Congress for legislation.

It was claimed by the tribes at a House hearing that a National Labor Relations Board order would erode tribal sovereignty. They are trying to get casinos exempted from federal labour laws after the Board ruled, for the first time, that Indian tribes are under their jurisdiction. The case is presently being contested in the US Court of Appeals. As some tribes with gaming operations become increasingly wealthy and politically active, the Labor Relations Board has declared that they should be treated as commercial businesses and come under the same labour laws.

The growing success of Indian gaming has given it a high profile. In many ways the tribal casinos have achieved their purpose and given the tribes the opportunity to improve the education and welfare of their people, and to make their own decisions on most aspects of their lives. However, such is their success that the first seeds of a future downturn may have been sown. As gambling becomes increasingly a socially acceptable activity, some states with only tribal gaming are considering amending their constitutions to allow commercial casinos. These would doubtless be nearer large centres of population and pose strong competition to the tribal casinos that are frequently on more remote reservation land.

In one aspect or another, Indian gaming has been subject to never ending lawsuits and counter lawsuits since the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act was passed by Congress in 1988. It was, in the words of Douglas Nash, ‘an attempt to strike a balance between the rights of tribes to engage in activities generally free of state jurisdiction and the interests of states in regulating gaming activities within their boundaries’. As in most cases, the compromise pleased neither side and the legal arguments continue. In the case of labour laws it remains to be seen whether the tribal casinos, now employers of large numbers of non-tribal staff, can retain jurisdiction in the face of what has been described as the ‘bureaucratic power grab’ by the National Labor Relations Board.
(E-07.21.06)

© Copyright 2006 CasinoCompendium



>>> return to archives
>>> return to frontpage