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: It also specifies that Indian tribe shall have the right to regulate gaming concurrently with the state, unless some aspect of the compact is broken. The IGRA takes specific notice of the fact that the text is not "conferring upon a State or any of its political subdivisions the authority to impose any taxes, fee, charge, or other assessment upon an Indian tribe. This reference indicates that the Congress realized it was not following the norm of tribal governments operating independently of states. The compacts between states and tribes have caused a great deal of controversy and the original definition of Tribal-State Compacts has been redefined by several court cases and congressional acts. This section will address the more prominent actions that have refined the methods of establishing Tribal-State compacts. 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.