Legal Opinion
Artichoke Joe's California Grand Casino v. Norton
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided December 22, 2003No. 02-16508PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
GRABER, Circuit Judge.
Plaintiffs are California card clubs and charities that are prohibited under California state law from offering casino-style gaming. They challenge the validity of compacts entered into under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (“IGRA”), 25 U.S.C. §§ 2701-2721, between the State of California and certain Indian tribes. Pursuant to an amendment to the California Constitution that permits casino-style gaming only on Indian lands (“Proposition 1A”), California has entered into 62 compacts (“Tribal-State Compacts”) with Indian tribes allowing such gaming. Plaintiffs brought…
2Cases cited72 opinions
- Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Almendarez-Torres v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1998
- Buckley v. ValeoSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
- Seminole Tribe of Florida v. FloridaSupreme Court of the United States · 1996
- McGowan v. MarylandSupreme Court of the United States · 1961
67 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Arakaki v. LingleDistrict Court, D. Hawaii · 2004
- Artichoke Joe's California Grand Casino v. Gale A. NortonCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2003
- Carrington v. Detroit Buildings Safety Engineering and Environment DepartmentDistrict Court, E.D. Michigan · 2025