Ysleta del Sur Pueblo v. Texas
The Supreme Court ruled that a 1987 federal law only bars gaming on the Ysleta del Sur Pueblo's reservation when Texas itself completely bans that game — the State cannot use the law to impose its broader gaming regulations on tribal land.
The decision undoes more than 25 years of Fifth Circuit precedent that had let Texas apply all its gaming rules on the reservation, and sends the case back for lower courts to sort out which specific games Texas fully bans versus merely regulates.
“The Restoration Act bans as a matter of federal law on tribal lands only those gaming activities also banned in Texas.”
The majority's core holding on how narrowly the 1987 federal law restricts tribal gaming.
How it got here: A federal district court enjoined the tribe's bingo operations; the Fifth Circuit affirmed relying on its 1994 Ysleta I precedent; the tribe petitioned the Supreme Court, which agreed to hear the case.
The Case in Depth
What happened
The Ysleta del Sur Pueblo, a federally recognized tribe of over 4,000 members near El Paso, began offering bingo — including electronic bingo machines that look like slot machines — at its Speaking Rock Entertainment Center in 2016. Texas sought to shut down all of the tribe's bingo operations, arguing that a 1987 federal law (the Restoration Act) made all Texas gaming regulations enforceable as federal law on the reservation. The tribe argued the law only bans games Texas completely prohibits, leaving regulated games like bingo available to the tribe under federal rules.
The question before the Court
Can Texas enforce all of its gaming regulations on the Ysleta del Sur Pueblo's reservation, or does a 1987 federal law only ban games that Texas completely prohibits?
The Court's answer
No — the Court ruled that the 1987 Restoration Act only forbids gaming on the tribe's reservation when Texas itself completely bans that game. If Texas merely regulates how a game like bingo is played — for example, allowing it for charitable purposes under specific rules — the tribe is not barred from offering that game by state law. Texas admitted its bingo laws do not forbid the game but only set rules for when and how it may be played, putting them on the regulatory side of the line. Federal gaming law, including the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, still governs what the tribe may offer.
The Court read the Act's use of "prohibited" alongside an express denial of Texas "regulatory jurisdiction" as reflecting the Supreme Court's own 1987 decision in California v. Cabazon Band of Mission Indians, which drew the same prohibitory/regulatory distinction for other tribal gaming situations. The Fifth Circuit's 1994 ruling that all Texas gaming regulations served as surrogate federal law on the reservation was mistaken and is vacated.
Curious how the Court got there? See the step-by-step legal reasoning →
Why it matters
The Ysleta del Sur Pueblo can now potentially offer bingo and other games that Texas merely regulates rather than outright bans, subject to federal gaming law. Because the tribe's gaming revenue funds roughly 60% of its government operations — including schools and social services — the ruling has direct consequences for tribal members. Lower courts must still determine whether specific games like electronic bingo are permitted.
What changes now
The case returns to the Fifth Circuit, which must reconsider under the correct legal standard: the Restoration Act bans on the reservation only those games Texas fully prohibits. Lower courts will need to determine which specific activities fall on the banned versus merely regulated side of that line. The Court flagged the status of "electronic bingo" machines as a likely hard case requiring evidence and expert testimony. The tribe may operate gaming activities that Texas only regulates, subject to federal gaming law including IGRA.
What this does not decide
The Court does not decide whether the tribe's "electronic bingo" machines constitute bingo (merely regulated by Texas and therefore potentially permissible) or a different game Texas fully bans. The Court also does not resolve what specific gaming activities the tribe may or may not offer under federal law on remand.
Concurrences and dissents
Dissent — Justice Roberts
Chief Justice Roberts argued that a straightforward reading of the Restoration Act makes all of Texas's gaming laws apply on the tribal reservation — not just those that categorically ban a game. He contended the statute's text, combined with the tribal resolution Congress expressly said it was acting in accordance with (which requested a ban on 'all gaming as defined by Texas law'), compelled Texas's reading. He also argued the majority's interpretation makes criminal gaming violations receive more lenient treatment than other violations of Texas law, which makes little sense given that gaming was the entire sticking point in passing the law.
How the Court got there
The legal reasoning, step by step
- The Restoration Act's key gaming provision uses the words 'prohibited' and 'regulatory jurisdiction' as opposites — a pairing the Court found impossible to read as accidental. 'Prohibit' means to forbid or make something impossible; 'regulate' means to set rules about time, place, and manner. Texas admitted its bingo laws do not forbid the game outright but only control how it is played, which placed Texas's bingo laws on the regulatory side of that line.
- If Texas's reading were accepted — treating any game played outside state regulations as 'prohibited' — the word 'prohibit' would absorb all of 'regulate,' violating the basic principle that different words in the same law carry different meanings. It would also leave the statute's explicit denial of Texas 'regulatory jurisdiction' over tribal gaming with nothing meaningful to do, and would reduce a third subsection granting federal courts exclusive enforcement authority to mere repetition of what the second subsection already covered.
- Six months before Congress passed the Restoration Act, the Supreme Court decided California v. Cabazon Band of Mission Indians (1987), which drew a line between 'prohibitory' and 'regulatory' state gaming laws under Public Law 280 (a separate federal statute allowing certain states to enforce some laws on tribal lands). Cabazon held that California's bingo laws — which the Court said were materially identical to Texas's — were regulatory, not prohibitory. The Court presumes Congress knew of this directly relevant precedent when writing the Restoration Act months later.
- Congress also demonstrated it knew how to give a state full regulatory power over tribal gaming when it chose to. On the very same day it passed the Restoration Act, Congress enacted a law for the Wampanoag Tribe applying both laws that 'prohibit or regulate' gaming. For the Catawba Tribe, Congress applied 'all laws, ordinances, and regulations' governing gambling. For this tribe, Congress used only 'prohibited.' That deliberate difference across closely related statutes passed around the same time points strongly toward a different — narrower — rule for the Ysleta del Sur Pueblo.
- The Court rejected Texas's appeal to practicality. The prohibitory/regulatory distinction may produce difficult borderline cases, but courts have applied the same framework under Public Law 280 for decades, IGRA draws a similar line for tribal gaming nationwide, and Texas's own reading would saddle federal courts with enforcing the minute details of state gaming regulations — an unusual role federal courts have struggled with for over 25 years under the vacated Fifth Circuit rule.
Doctrinal impact
Cases affected by this decision
Reaffirms California v. Cabazon Band of Mission Indians (480 U.S. 202)
The Court applies Cabazon's prohibitory/regulatory distinction to the Restoration Act, confirming its framework governs tribal gaming disputes.