Indian Casinos and the law

1. Are Indian Casinos subject to the U.S. Constitution? Specifically, the 14th Amendment's guarantee of equal protection?
2. Do "Ladies' Only" tables pass constitutional muster?
3. Since the current conversation on sex in bathrooms (as in "choice of", not "doing it in") seems to have gotten a lot of attention, how does the ever-developing definition of sexual assignment (if that's the appropriate term) apply to a "Ladies' Only" offering.
4. What responsibilities befall an establishment that offers such a thing?

IANALBIAAOOTI*, but my guess is, if the casino isn't considered "publicly owned," then it can get away with it, and it being on Indian land has nothing to do with it.

Otherwise, why doesn't every man who has tried to enter a Vegas pool or club, only to notice that there's one cover charge for him and a significantly smaller one (in quite a few cases, zero) for women, sue for discrimination?

Which brings up the question: who does own an Indian casino? The tribe as a whole? A private organization of some sort?

*I Am Not A Lawyer But I Act Like One On The Internet

Not being "publicly owned" cannot be enough. If I privately own my restaurant and deny service to a class of protected people, based on race, gender, etc., etc., my sole ownership of the facility does not, I think, allow me to do so. I recall something like "public accommodation" or along the lines of "offering a service to the general public" as being sufficient to require that I not discriminate against certain classes of people.

I would imagine that the fact of the facility being on tribal property technically outside of the jurisdiction of a state government might limit the enforceability of state law, but the U.S. Constitution would have to apply - as it does everywhere.

I know they have "Ladies' Nights" in bars, or used to, my last bar-hopping experience occurring in the mid-80s, but my recollection is that this was a justifiable marketing ploy to entice young ladies into the establishment in order to entice the young men to follow. Perhaps that's enough of a cover to allow a "Ladies Only" pit at a casino.

Quote: racquet

Not being "publicly owned" cannot be enough. If I privately own my restaurant and deny service to a class of protected people, based on race, gender, etc., etc., my sole ownership of the facility does not, I think, allow me to do so. I recall something like "public accommodation" or along the lines of "offering a service to the general public" as being sufficient to require that I not discriminate against certain classes of people.

True, but if there's a table available for men, then they're not being "denied service."

Then again, aren't Curves fitness centers limited to women? (Or do they just make it sound that way?)

This thread revived some memories I have of an incident at a local Indian casino here in Washington state. I apologize in advance if I have strayed from the original thread.
My wife and I were playing blackjack one Saturday night with some friends when we heard gun shots from the other side of the casino. We dived under the table. Then there was a mass of people heading for various exits. In the process my wife rounded a corner near a door and fell down. Another man helped her up and out the door. We found later that she had broken her hand in the process. This was verified with a doctor's visit and x-ray. We followed up later by filing a claim with the casino for the injury and doctor's bills. The casino's insurance company contacted us to get our statements. After several weeks of dead ends and attempts to verify the injury on the casino's cameras we were told that there was no evidence of liability on the casino. They told us that they could not find us on the video tapes.
We called several local attorneys to see if they thought that we might have a case. We were told that tribal law is a difficult thing to crack and that they did not want to attempt a case. My wife recovered fine but we still talk about that night. The tribe does not provide the same security and legal expectations that you would expect from public casinos.

Indian casinos are owned by the tribe, the "Indian nation," and are considered "sovereign nations."

They often agree to comply with "white man's laws" by entering into compacts, if they find it advantageous.

Not all forms of discrimination seem to be illegal in America: "ladies night" and "senior discount" come to mind.

I wonder if anybody ever challenged them in court?

They clearly are discriminatory.

Often the only court is an Indian court where YOUR lawyer must be admitted to practice, which pretty much means he must be a member of the tribe.

Indian courts are by nature rehabilitative and conciliatory so you meet with the offender and he apoligizes and gives you a feather or an apple or something. (No Joke).

Get hurt by a valet parker in a "real" casino, no problem. In an Indian casino... good luck.

The laws do vary and some compacts impose tort liability but its mainly on paper.

One group of Baccarat players tried to stage some sort of protest at the minimums being raised. The Head of Security came out and said in One Minute Everyone at the table will be arrested by the Tribal Police, Taken to teh Tribal Jail and tried before a Tribal Judge. All the players got up and left.

As they Carneys used to bark: You pays your money and you take your chance.

Washington State often offers full day CLEs on Gambling Law if you really want the details.

Quote:

Washington State often offers full day CLEs on Gambling Law if you really want the details.

The Northwest Gaming Law Summit is in Seattle, Dec. 8-9.

Quote: ThatDonGuy

IANALBIAAOOTI*, but my guess is, if the casino isn't considered "publicly owned," then it can get away with it, and it being on Indian land has nothing to do with it.

Otherwise, why doesn't every man who has tried to enter a Vegas pool or club, only to notice that there's one cover charge for him and a significantly smaller one (in quite a few cases, zero) for women, sue for discrimination?

Which brings up the question: who does own an Indian casino? The tribe as a whole? A private organization of some sort?

*I Am Not A Lawyer But I Act Like One On The Internet

No lawyer worth his salt asks a question he doesn't already know th answer to.

Ladies night is free drinks and entrance for women, ladies only tables/pit (never heard of this) would be no men at the table, more like a women's only gym than ladies night at a bar.

Quote:

No lawyer worth his salt asks a question he doesn't already know th answer to.

That applies only when a lawyer is cross-examining a witness.

does the state gaming commission have any authority over the indian casinos?
if not, then what entity provides oversight?

A couple of additional points to clarify my question:

An "Indian Nation" may well have the right to enforce its own laws, in lieu of the laws of, let's say, the State of Connecticut. But would not the U.S. Constitution apply in that jurisdiction, as it does in Connecticut? In the extreme, if any "Sovereign Nation" in the U.S. were to adopt slavery, would not the Thirteenth Amendment invalidate such a "local" law?

I can accept (although not agree with) the Tribal Court or the Tribal government rejecting a civil claim for damages, but if the Tribal Court were to impose the death penalty for parking in a handicapped zone (again in the extreme) would not a claim of "cruel and unusual punishment" be appropriate under the Eighth Amendment?

Body cavity searches looking for something trivial - without a search warrant - doesn't the Fourth Amendment cover all of the U.S., including Tribal Nations?

As to offering the same kind of service equally to men and women, "separate but equal" went out of fashion in 1954 (see Brown v. Board of Education). It certainly doesn't rise to the same level as segregation in the old Jim Crow South, but what if a particular set of rules, especially dealing with a minimum bet, were offered only at a "Ladies Only" table, and no where else in the establishment?

And if that's OK, then let's put it in the realm of something other than sex. "Asian Only Pai Gow Poker". "Spanish Blackjack - Hispanics Only." Slippery slope indeed.

Review this: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tribal_sovereignty_in_the_United_States

If a truly and fully sovereign nation existed that was surrounded completely and land locked by the United States, they would not be bound by the US Constitution nor would they be granted any rights from it.

Tribal nations do not have full sovereignty.

That said, US citizens do not have a whole lot of rights when on their soil.

I suggest you start with the Wikipedia article and it's references to find the answers to those specific questions you are bringing up. I doubt anyone here knows the answer as a certainty, so you will end up with a whole bunch of arguments and opinions which appeal to reason but are most likely not backed by citable facts.

Quote: MrV

Not all forms of discrimination seem to be illegal in America: "ladies night" and "senior discount" come to mind.

I wonder if anybody ever challenged them in court?

They clearly are discriminatory.

We didn't pass the Equal Rights Amendment, so it varies by state. Sexually discriminatory pricing is legal in Nevada, illegal in California. Dunno about the other 48.

I'm pretty sure that U.S. Courts would have jurisdiction regarding any felony committed or alleged on tribal lands.

My limited understanding is that the native American Lands are granted sovereignty by the US Senate, as proven by detailed records. A casino built upon such lands is therefore answerable to Tribal Authority. In some cases that Authority may negotiate with the State surrounding such lands. For example, general law and order around the grounds of the casino, traffic-flow, etc. Such negotiations may extend to Gaming Legislation and or Rules, but are not required.

One of the earlier questions on this board (say 2010/11) was about if an Indian Casino can have a secondary program to drop say one coin-in in 100 (making a 99% VP game really a 98% game). It is a slippery slope indeed, let alone human rights involving gender.

Jurisdiction in Indian country is tricky.

see: jurisdiction in Indian country

Ummm, thats page 1 of this thread

regards
98

That'll teach me to jump in and not read the entire thread.

Moral of the story: get a tribal lawyer if you go to tribal court.

indian tribes enter into agreements with the state in which they have a casino. this covers lots of things, including of course, the monies paod to the state on a yearly basis. the gaming commission of each state should have these agreements on their websites.

Quote: 100xOdds

does the state gaming commission have any authority over the indian casinos?
if not, then what entity provides oversight?

The details vary state-to-state, depending upon the nature of the state-tribe agreement.

In a state like North Carolina, which has no other forms of gambling to regulate and therefore has no other reason to organize and fund a state gaming commission, the State simply punted to the Eastern Band of Cherokee Tribes. So, in North Carolina, the gaming commission is 100% tribal with no State oversight. The Tribal Gaming Commission goes through the motions so as to satisfy the Federal Regulations promulgated by the U.S. Senate Indian Affairs Committee. I personally think its very ineffective -almost like zero regulation - but industry shills on this site claim otherwise (without having ever seen that kind of system in action).

Other states that had horse racing or lotteries or allowed bingo prior to getting Indian Casinos tend to have fully independent Gaming Commissions within their state governments to regulate Indian casinos. Its common sense to assume that those states provide more effective regulation.

I know in my home state in the midwest, you can still legally gamble in a tribal casino, even if you've placed yourself on the voluntary self ban list for the state. I've often wondered how the tribes manage to work around that rule, as well as if anyone has ever won a jackpot at a tribal casino after putting themselves on a self ban in the rest of the state?

Sorry if it's slightly off topic, but seemed like a relevant question given the topic, and not worthy of a new thread of its own.

SC,

>>...if anyone has ever won a jackpot at a tribal casino after putting themselves on a self ban in the rest of the state

Hmmm... Hit the jackpot and, instead of a hand pay, the casino says, "Bub, you aren't allowed to gamble, so we cannot pay you. Too bad." I dunno, but it would sure be negative reinforcement for the banned gambler.