Ysleta del Sur Pueblo v. Texas
View Official PDFBelow are plain-language sections to help you understand what the Court decided in Ysleta del Sur Pueblo v. Texas and why it matters. Quotes are taken from the syllabus (the Court’s short summary at the start of the opinion).
Summary
A short, plain-English overview of Ysleta del Sur Pueblo v. Texas.
The Supreme Court addressed a conflict between Texas and the Ysleta del Sur Pueblo Tribe regarding gaming laws. The Court determined that the Restoration Act prohibits only those gaming activities banned by Texas law on tribal lands. The decision vacated the Fifth Circuit's ruling, which had enforced Texas's gaming regulations on the Tribe.
Holding
The single most important “bottom line” of what the Court decided in Ysleta del Sur Pueblo v. Texas.
The Court held that the Restoration Act prohibits only those gaming activities that are banned by Texas law on tribal lands.
Constitutional Concepts
These are the Constitution-related themes that appear in Ysleta del Sur Pueblo v. Texas. Click a concept to see other cases that involve the same idea.
-
Why State–Federal Power is relevant to Ysleta del Sur Pueblo v. Texas
The case involves the allocation of authority between state and federal governments regarding gaming laws on tribal lands.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)The Restoration Act bans as a matter of federal law on tribal lands only those gaming activities also banned in Texas.
-
Why Preemption is relevant to Ysleta del Sur Pueblo v. Texas
The case discusses whether federal law under the Restoration Act and IGRA preempts Texas state gaming laws.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)Texas refused, arguing that the Restoration Act displaced IGRA and required the Tribe to follow all of the State's gaming laws on tribal lands.
-
Why Judicial Review is relevant to Ysleta del Sur Pueblo v. Texas
The Court's decision involves interpreting federal statutes and their application over state laws, which is a function of judicial review.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)A full look at the statute's structure suggests a set of simple and coherent commands; Texas's competing interpretation renders individual statutory terms duplicative and leaves whole provisions without work to perform.
Key Quotes
Short excerpts from the syllabus in Ysleta del Sur Pueblo v. Texas that support the summary and concepts above.
The Restoration Act bans as a matter of federal law on tribal lands only those gaming activities also banned in Texas.
Texas's interpretation also defies another canon of statutory construction—the rule that courts must normally seek to construe Congress's work 'so that effect is given to all provisions.'
Congress passed the Restoration Act six months after this Court handed down its decision in California v. Cabazon Band of Mission Indians.
