Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives…

This Act may be cited as the “Tribal Gaming Regulatory Compliance Act”

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

Congress finds the following:

1. In 1987, the Supreme Court ruled in California v. Cabazon Band of Mission Indians that if California regulated, rather than prohibited, gaming in the State, then an Indian Tribe could offer similar forms of gaming on its land.
2. In response to the Cabazon decision, the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (Public Law 100–497) was enacted, which has since supported and promoted Tribal economic development and self-sufficiency and continues to provide a regulatory structure for gaming on Tribal lands.
3. Over 200 Indian Tribes in 28 States are currently regulated under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act.

<li On June 15, 2022, the Supreme Court ruled that the Ysleta del Sur Pueblo and Alabama-Coushatta Indian Tribes of Texas Restoration Act (Public Law 100–89; 101 Stat. 666) allows the Ysleta del Sur Pueblo and the Alabama-Coushatta Tribe to offer, on Tribal lands, gaming activities that are not fully prohibited by Texas law and without regard to any Texas regulations over such gaming activities.

4. As a result of the Supreme Court decision, the Ysleta del Sur Pueblo and the Alabama-Coushatta Tribe are the only two Indian Tribes in the United States that have overlapping regulatory language governing their gaming activities (Public Law 497 and Public Law 100–89; 101 Stat. 666).
5. This Act will eliminate any redundant regulatory language and ensure the Ysleta del Sur Pueblo and the Alabama-Coushatta Tribe are regulated in the same form and manner as all other gaming by Indian Tribes in the United States.