Critics of the Department of the Interior’s process for new proposed tribal gaming rules say it lacks transparency. Opponents—including non-tribal interests who say their views are being ignored— are demanding that the rules be either withdrawn or revised.
However, those demands appear to be falling on deaf ears. One of the most controversial rules would allow for online gaming within an entire state with tribal gaming compacts. The deadline for public comment on the rules was March 1.
Despite the storm of criticism, the Bureau of Indian Affairs’ (BIA) Bryan Newland is only required to abide by the federal Administrative Procedure Act, which he has done. Unless someone intervenes, or a lawsuit is filed, the new regulations that govern internet gaming compacts between tribes and states and the purchase of land for casinos will get into effect.
As part of its report on this issue, VIXIO GamblingCompliance interviewed Jeff Ifrah, a Washington D.C.-based internet gambling attorney, and critic of the new rules.
He said, “We want to sit down with BIA because we want to be heard on a host of issues that are outlined in our comments.” Those comments were submitted by the gaming trade association iDEA.
iDEA and several state gaming associations in Iowa, Missouri, Louisiana and Mississippi sent letters to BIA arguing that allowing a tribe to conduct online gaming statewide with a gaming compact violates the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988 because the gaming activity would not be confined to sovereign tribal land.
There is currently a federal court case considering this very issue: the gaming compact between the Seminole Tribe of Florida and that state’s Governor Ron DeSantis. The compact gave the tribe statewide reach with online sports betting.
Ifrah and others also criticize proposed rules making it easier for tribes to put land trust for casinos far from their homelands.
Ifrah added, “We’re obviously hopeful that these regulations won’t go forward and that we’re given an opportunity to have a seat at the table to discuss the true economic impact to the commercial interests of our members and also have a discussion with tribes who do participate in regulated state-wide gaming.”
A major critic of the new rules is Rep. James Comer, new chairman of the Oversight and Reform Committee in the U.S. House of Representatives.
On March 1 he commented to the BIA: “Additionally, adopting the Proposed Rules would overstep BIA’s statutory authority by disregarding the requirement that gaming conducted under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) occur on ‘Indian lands, and nowhere else.’”
A common complaint to the BIA was a lack of transparency and not listening to non-tribal interests.
