State of Idaho v. Coeur D'Alene Tribe
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 12634
9th Cir.2015Background
- The Coeur d’Alene Tribe planned to offer Texas Hold’em poker at its casino; Idaho notified the Tribe of noncompliance and sued under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA).
- The parties previously litigated the scope of Idaho gaming law; federal courts held Idaho permits only the state lottery and parimutuel betting, not other Class III games.
- The Tribe moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and tribal sovereign immunity and argued venue was improper because the Tribal–State Gaming Compact required arbitration.
- The district court compelled arbitration initially but later, after neither party invoked arbitration, denied dismissal, found IGRA abrogated tribal immunity, and entered a preliminary injunction barring Hold’em.
- The Ninth Circuit affirmed: it held Hold’em is Class III (poker expressly prohibited by Idaho law), IGRA’s remedial provision abrogated immunity, the Compact did not bar litigation absent an arbitration notice, and injunctive relief was appropriate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Idaho) | Defendant's Argument (Tribe) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether IGRA abrogates tribal sovereign immunity for this dispute | IGRA §2710(d)(7)(A)(ii) applies because Hold’em is Class III on Indian land and the State seeks to enjoin unlawful Class III gaming | Tribe: IGRA does not abrogate immunity because Hold’em is Class II or not covered by the Compact | Held: Abrogation applies — Hold’em is Class III under Idaho law (poker explicitly prohibited), so §2710(d)(7)(A)(ii) is satisfied |
| Classification of Texas Hold’em (Class II vs Class III) | Idaho: Idaho law explicitly prohibits poker; exceptions do not cover Hold’em, so it is Class III requiring a compact | Tribe: Hold’em involves skill and fits statutory exceptions (e.g., contests of skill) or is not addressed by the Compact | Held: Hold’em is not Class II; Idaho Constitution/statute explicitly prohibit poker and exceptions cited by Tribe do not apply |
| Whether the Compact’s dispute-resolution provisions bar federal litigation (venue/ arbitration) | Idaho: Compact permits litigation unless a party invokes arbitration; no party invoked arbitration here so litigation is allowed | Tribe: Compact’s arbitration/complaint mechanism precludes federal suit or provides exclusive forum | Held: Compact does not bar litigation absent a notice invoking binding arbitration; venue in federal court was proper |
| Appropriateness of preliminary injunction | Idaho: Injunctive relief necessary because sovereign immunity would prevent recovery of damages and ongoing unlawful gaming causes irreparable harm and public-interest injury | Tribe: Injunction improper because immunity bars suit and alternative remedies exist; harms to Tribe outweigh State’s harms | Held: Preliminary injunction proper — irreparable harm, balance of equities, and public interest favor Idaho; district court’s findings not clearly erroneous |
Key Cases Cited
- Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44 (1996) (overview of IGRA’s class scheme and compact requirement for Class III gaming)
- Michigan v. Bay Mills Indian Community, 134 S. Ct. 2024 (2014) (limits on abrogation analysis and requirement that statutory prerequisites be satisfied to waive tribal immunity)
- Kiowa Tribe of Oklahoma v. Manufacturing Technologies, 523 U.S. 751 (1998) (tribal sovereign immunity principles)
- C & L Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizen Band Potawatomi Tribe of Oklahoma, 532 U.S. 411 (2001) (requirement that Congress unequivocally express intent to abrogate immunity)
- Coeur d’Alene Tribe v. Idaho, 51 F.3d 876 (9th Cir. 1995) (prior litigation resolving scope of Idaho gaming law)
- Cabazon Band of Mission Indians v. Wilson, 124 F.3d 1050 (9th Cir. 1997) (compact coverage matters when determining whether particular games breach a compact)
- Artichoke Joe’s California Grand Casino v. Norton, 353 F.3d 712 (9th Cir. 2003) (discussion of state tolerance and statutory provisions in IGRA contexts)