Tribal–state compacts are legal agreements between U.S. state government and Native American tribes primarily used for gambling, health care, child welfare, or other affairs.
Native American tribes are expected to request a compact with states if they should desire to have Class III gaming.
The original text of the act implied that if states tried to "stone-wall" tribal gambling, the tribes could look to the federal courts for support.
[3] But while the IGRA gives states unprecedented influence on tribal economic concerns, it also seeks to maintain the federal government as the "guardian" of the tribes.
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.
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".
Furthermore, the case set the precedent of only allowing state regulation of the tribes rarely and with federal preemption only.
[9] In denying the states the right to regulate tribal gambling, the court had essentially forced the task on to Congress.
In fact, this was perhaps one of the main concerns on part of the states who were lobbying the federal government for some right to regulate gaming because of the chance of such infiltration.
If the federal court found that states did not negotiate in good faith, it could then require that a compact be agreed upon within 60 days.
Experts have noted that in drafting the IGRA, Congress sought to protect the tribes, but in passing the decision in this case, the Court ignored this intention and allowed the balance of power shift in favor of the states.
Tribal gambling under the law is a dynamic issue that is still contested and there are many proposals for ways to fix the "gap" that the Seminole case left in the IGRA.