Title: Tribal-state compacts - Wikipedia
Headings: Tribal-state compacts
Tribal-state compacts
Contents
The IGRA of 1988 and Tribal-State Compacts
Balance between federal, state, and tribal government
Brief history of tribal sovereignty and the law
Indian gambling and tribal sovereignty
Compacts in the wake of Seminole
See also
References

Content: Balance between federal, state, and tribal government
Indian gambling has been the source and focus of a great deal of controversy. Part of the reason for this is the ambiguity that surrounds tribal sovereignty in the legal sense. Brief history of tribal sovereignty and the law
Much of the current understanding of tribal sovereignty can be traced back to John Marshall and his decisions. American government has long operated under the legacy of Worcester v. Georgia, which stated strongly that the history of relations with Indians had established the understanding that tribes were "distinct political communities, having territorial boundaries, within which their authority is exclusive". However, tribes were still subject to federal regulation and laws. As Marshall had already confirmed in Cherokee Nation v. Georgia where he labeled tribes as having a ward relationship to the "guardian" national government. These decisions occurred quite some time ago, but have shaped much of the modern dealings with tribal sovereignty. There have been some exceptions made to allowing states some impact on tribes (such as Public Law 280 and crimes committed by a non-Indian to a non-Indian on tribal land), but for the most part have restricted states from interfering. When states are allowed to regulate tribal activity, there are strict guidelines to be met. On the part of federal action, the assumption is that tribes have the inherent right to govern themselves unless federal action specifically prevents an action.