Ysleta del Sur Pueblo v. Texas (20-493)

argument 20-493

Ysleta del Sur Pueblo v. Texas

Supreme Court of the United States 1h 31m 8 speakers 8 chapters transcribed 7 days ago official recording ↗

▲ 0

Transcript

jump: chapters · speakers · find in transcript

Transcript

Transcript generated automatically by AI and may contain errors.

What legal question does the Ysleta del Sur Pueblo v. Texas case present?

John G. Roberts 0:00

We'll hear argument first this morning in Isleta del Se Pueblo versus Texas. Mr Martin.

Daniel B. Martin 0:12

Mr Chief Justice, and may it please the Court. The question this case presents is whether the Restoration Act subjects the Pueblo to Texas's time, place, and manner restrictions as it relates to games that Texas does not flatly prohibit. It does not. Congr in the Restoration Act, Congress codified the Cabazon Ban Framework and specifically foreclosed Texas's regulatory authority over the tribe's gaming activities. The plain language of the Act provides us with clear support for this interpretation. On the heels of this Court's decision in Cabazon, Congress changed the language of the Restoration Act to replicate the prohibitory, regulatory dichotomy struck in Cabazon. Section one hundred seven A incorporates the Cavazon framework.

Daniel B. Martin 1:04

It federalizes Texas law, but only as to prohibited games. And bingo in the state of Texas is not a prohibited game. Section one hundred seven B clearly forecloses any interpretation of Section one hundred seven in its entirety where Texas would have regulatory jurisdiction over tribal gaming. And Section one hundred seven B must have meaning in the Act. The problem with the State of Texas's interpretation and the Fifth Circuit's interpretation in his LATA one is that it reads one hundred seven B out of the Act entirely. This interpretation is also consistent with Congress's extension of the Cabazon framework to IGRA. The two statutes are not in conflict, and you don't have to choose one over the other.

Daniel B. Martin 1:51

And even if that were the case, and we don't think it is, the plain language of the Restoration Act allows my client to engage in non prohibited gaming activities. In sections one hundred seven A and one hundred seven B, Congress was sending the clear signal that it was incorporating the prohibitory regulatory construct from Cabazon into a test applicable to these tribes. The final text of the Restoration Act reflects the bargain that Congress struck. Each side got something, but not everything. Texas was allowed to prevent prohibited games from being played by these tribes. Meanwhile, the tribe was allowed to retain its sovereignty and its freedom from regulation as it related to gaming activities.

Daniel B. Martin 2:37

And with that, I'd be pleased to answer any questions from the court.

Clarence Thomas 2:40

Uh yes, council. The um in the Kabazon was a grant of jurisdiction, right?

Daniel B. Martin 2:48

Yes, Your Honor.

Clarence Thomas 2:49

Uh is there any difference where is there a grant of jurisdiction in one hundred seven A?

Daniel B. Martin 2:58

Your Honor, looking at the text of one hundred seven A It's specifically dealing with the tribal gaming activities. Uh there's not a specific reference to the grant of the jurisdiction.

Clarence Thomas 3:13

So what d a just standing alone, what do you think it's doing?

Daniel B. Martin 3:17

Your Honor, I think it's dictating, it is showing that Congress was extending the Cabazon framework to this fact pattern where Congress was federalizing state law as to prohibited gaming activities. It is taking the public law two hundred eighty structure that was explicated in Cabazon and extending it to this fact pattern.

Clarence Thomas 3:35

So exactly how does it how is it doing that?

Daniel B. Martin 3:37

Well, Your Honor, in the text itself, uh the first sentence, all gaming activities which are prohibited by the laws of the State of Texas are hereby prohibited on the reservation and on the lands of the tribes.

Clarence Thomas 3:49

It seems almost as though it's adopting it as federal law.

Daniel B. Martin 3:53

It's adopting Texas's prohibitory laws as to prohibited gaming activities. It's one of the things that is interesting, Your Honor, is that compared to previous versions of this Act, this final w one of the final changes in Section one hundred eight was changing it from gaming and gambling in those broader terms to the concept of gaming activities and specifying prohibited gaming activities.

John G. Roberts 4:18

Well I mean you say that one oh seven was enacted in light of Cabazon, but It was directly enacted in light of the tribal resolution which said that uh Uh the tribe was willing at this point, after all the back and forth, I they obviously weren't happy about it, but they were willing to provide uh that all gaming, gambling, lottery bingo uh uh shall be prohibited.