Background & Facts
The Cabazon and Morongo Bands operated bingo halls and card rooms on their reservations in Riverside County, California. The state and the county sought to enforce California's bingo regulations and Riverside's gambling ordinances against the tribes, arguing that P.L. 280's grant of criminal jurisdiction allowed it to apply state and local gambling laws to tribal operations.
The tribes argued that California's gambling laws were regulatory, not prohibitory — California permitted bingo and card rooms with conditions, taxed the gaming industry, and even ran a state lottery. Therefore, P.L. 280 — limited to genuinely criminal/prohibitory laws — did not authorize state enforcement on tribal land.
The case became the landmark for the prohibitory/regulatory distinction and laid the foundation for the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act passed the following year.
The Court's Holding
In a 6-3 decision authored by Justice White, the Supreme Court ruled for the tribes. The Court held that California's gambling laws were regulatory in character — not prohibitory — and therefore P.L. 280's grant of criminal/prohibitory jurisdiction did NOT authorize the state to enforce those laws on tribal land.
Key Holding — The Cabazon Test:
If a state's laws "generally permit the conduct at issue, subject to regulation," the laws are regulatory and P.L. 280 does NOT extend them to tribal land. Only if state law "prohibits the conduct" outright does P.L. 280 extend criminal jurisdiction. California's bingo and card-room regulations were regulatory; P.L. 280 did not apply.
Key Language
"If the intent of a state law is generally to prohibit certain conduct, it falls within Pub. L. 280's grant of criminal jurisdiction, but if the state law generally permits the conduct at issue, subject to regulation, it must be classified as civil/regulatory and Pub. L. 280 does not authorize its enforcement on an Indian reservation."
"Tribal sovereignty is dependent on, and subordinate to, only the Federal Government, not the States. State jurisdiction is preempted... if it interferes or is incompatible with federal and tribal interests reflected in federal law."
How Cabazon Frees ATN's Tribal Economy
Cabazon is the case that unlocks tribal commerce in California. Apply the Cabazon test to anything California "regulates but permits" — and P.L. 280 cannot reach it on tribal trust land.
Direct ATN applications:
- 1. Cannabis: California legalized and regulates cannabis. It is regulated, not prohibited. Cabazon means California cannot enforce its cannabis licensing scheme on tribal trust land.
- 2. Hemp / THCa: California regulates hemp; it does not prohibit it. P.L. 280 does not extend state hemp regulation to ATN's hemp operations.
- 3. Gaming: California regulates and taxes gambling, runs a lottery, and permits card rooms. P.L. 280 does not reach tribal gaming on trust land.
- 4. Smoked salmon & food products: California regulates food production; it does not prohibit it. ATN's tribal food sovereignty operations are protected by Cabazon.
- 5. Tobacco / hemp products: California regulates these; it does not prohibit them. Cabazon shields tribal sales.
- 6. Transport licensing: California regulates intrastate transport; it does not prohibit it. Tribal transport licenses on trust land are protected.
Cabazon converts almost every California "enforcement" action against ATN into a violation of binding Supreme Court precedent. Every cease-and-desist letter, every county code-enforcement raid, every state licensing demand — Cabazon is the answer.
Related Cases
- Bryan v. Itasca County (1976) — Foundational ruling that P.L. 280 grants only adjudicatory jurisdiction
- United States v. California (9th Cir. 1978) — Earlier 9th Circuit ruling rejecting California's expansive P.L. 280 reading
- McClanahan v. Arizona (1973) — Default rule: state authority excluded from Indian Country