Scope of Gaming Under IGRA: What 'Any Purpose, by Any Person' Means

How a state decides which games a tribe may offer is one of the most consequential and least intuitive questions in the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. The rule is often summarized in a phrase: Class III gaming is allowed on Indian lands only if the state "permits such gaming for any purpose by any person, organization, or entity." This explainer on the scope of gaming under IGRA describes what that phrase means, how courts have read it, and why it shapes negotiations over everything from slot machines to sports betting.

The statutory starting point

IGRA divides tribal gaming into three classes. Class I covers traditional social games, Class II covers bingo and related games, and Class III covers everything else, including slot machines, banked card games, and pari-mutuel wagering. Our Class II versus Class III explainer describes the distinctions. Class III gaming is lawful on Indian lands only if three conditions are met: it is authorized by a tribal ordinance approved by the National Indian Gaming Commission chair, it is located in a state that permits such gaming for any purpose by any person, organization, or entity, and it is conducted in conformance with a tribal-state compact.

The second condition is the one that defines scope. It ties what a tribe can offer to what the state allows anyone to offer, even in limited form.

Two ways courts have read it

The Supreme Court's decision in California v. Cabazon Band of Mission Indians (1987) distinguished between states that regulate gaming and states that prohibit it. If a state generally permits a type of gaming and merely regulates it, the Court reasoned, the state cannot enforce that regulation against a tribe on Indian lands; if the state prohibits the activity as a matter of public policy, it can. IGRA, passed the following year, built on that distinction. Our explainer on Cabazon and the history of IGRA provide the background.

Applying the "any purpose, by any person" language, courts and the Interior Department have generally looked at whether a state allows a game in some form, such as charitable fundraising, a lottery, or a commercial license. If it does, the game can be subject to a compact. If a state criminally prohibits the game entirely, a tribe typically cannot negotiate for it. This is why a state's treatment of a single game can open or close a category.

Why scope drives compact negotiations

Scope sets the floor and the ceiling of what a compact can cover. A state that permits sports wagering in any form can be asked to negotiate over tribal sports betting, which is how many tribes added it in recent years. A state that restricts a game to one tribe through exclusivity gives that tribe a protected position, usually in return for revenue sharing; see our explainer on exclusivity clauses and payment suspension. Conversely, when a state authorizes a game for non-tribal operators, tribes with exclusivity may argue the bargain has changed, as in disputes over historical horse racing machines examined in our flashpoint analysis.

The scope question also interacts with the good-faith duty. IGRA requires states to negotiate in good faith, but after Seminole Tribe v. Florida (1996), tribes generally cannot sue a state without its consent to enforce that duty, leading to the alternative procedures described in our explainers on that decision and on secretarial procedures.

Common misconceptions

One misconception is that a tribe may offer any game a state has ever allowed. In practice, the specific game, its legal category, and the state's current law all matter. Another is that scope is fixed. State legislatures can expand or contract what is permitted, and those changes can alter negotiating leverage. A third is that Class II games follow the same rules. They do not; Class II gaming is regulated primarily by tribes and the NIGC and does not require a compact, which is why Class II is significant in states that restrict Class III.

Finally, scope is not the only limit. Compacts may address licensing, regulatory responsibility, and the allocation of jurisdiction, but IGRA restricts states from imposing taxes on tribes, with payments permissible only in exchange for meaningful concessions. Our revenue-sharing explainer addresses that boundary.

Where to go next

For a broader look at the statutory framework, the Legal Guide collects primers on compacts, classes of gaming, and federal oversight. State-by-state context is available through the tribal gaming directory, which illustrates how differently each state has defined what is permitted. Understanding scope is the first step to reading any compact news with precision: nearly every headline about new games, exclusivity disputes, or expanded offerings turns on how this one phrase is applied.

Readers should also remember that compacts are public documents once approved and published in the Federal Register, so the scope language of any given agreement can be checked directly. Comparing the covered games in two compacts, even within the same state, often reveals how negotiation, timing and state law combined to produce different outcomes for different nations.