State of Idaho v. Coeur D'Alene TribeRIBE, No. 14-35753 (9th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CaseThe Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) divides gaming on Indian lands into three classes and provides a different regulatory scheme for each class. “Non-banking” card games (including poker) can be either Class II or Class III gaming, depending on the laws of the state in which the gaming takes place, 25 U.S.C. 2703. Banking card games are those in which the casino participates “in the game, where the house takes on all players, collects from all losers, and pays all winners, and the house can win.” The Coeur d’Alene Tribe and the state executed a Compact authorizing the Tribe to offer Class III gaming. The parties failed to agree on the scope of gaming allowed by Idaho law. The state argued that Idaho law only permitted the state lottery and parimutuel betting, while the Tribe countered that it allowed “all games that contain the elements of chance and or skill, prize and consideration.” Idaho officials learned that the Tribe intended to offer Texas Hold’em at the Casino and obtained a preliminary injunction. The Ninth Circuit affirmed, rejecting arguments that tribal sovereign immunity was not abrogated and that venue was improper under the terms of the Tribal-State Gaming Compact and upholding the district court’s findings.
Court Description: Indian Gaming Regulatory Act / Preliminary. Injunction The panel affirmed (1) the district court’s denial of a motion to dismiss the State of Idaho’s action alleging that the Coeur d’Alene Tribe’s offering of Texas Hold’em poker violated a Tribal-State Gaming Compact entered into under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, and (2) the district court’s grant of a preliminary injunction. The panel held that IGRA severed tribal sovereign immunity because Texas Hold’em was explicitly prohibited by Idaho law and therefore was “Class III” gaming under 25 U.S.C. § 2710(d)(7)(A)(ii). The panel rejected the argument that IGRA did not abrogate tribal immunity because the Compact encompassed only a subset of Class III gaming. The panel held that venue was proper because the Compact permitted litigation as well as arbitration of disputes. The panel concluded that its immunity analysis determined that Idaho was likely to succeed on the merits. The district court did not err in determining that the State would likely suffer irreparable harm to its economic and public policy interests if the Tribe were not enjoined from offering Texas Hold’em in violation of IGRA and the Compact. The district court did not err in finding that the STATE OF IDAHO V. COEUR D’ALENE TRIBE 3 balance of hardships tipped decidedly in the State’s favor and that the public interest supported granting injunctive relief. Accordingly, the panel affirmed the district court’s order preliminarily enjoining the Tribe from offering Texas Hold’em.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.