- Status
- Judgment entered (judgment)
- As of
- 25 Feb 1987 · read from the court record
- Court
- U.S. Supreme Court (from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit) · Supreme or high court
- Docket
- 85-1708
- Judge
- Justice White (majority); Justice Stevens (dissent, joined by O'Connor and Scalia)
- Filed
- not on record
- Type
- Regulator v. operator, regulator and attorney general cases
- Money
- No settlement fund or award on record
- Payout
- No payout exists as of 14 Nov 2026
Status words follow the court record: a complaint states one side's allegations, only the court's orders decide anything. Filing a settlement claim is always free.
What this case is about
Argued 9 December 1986 and decided 25 February 1987 by 6-3, Cabazon is the judgment that made tribal gaming a national industry and prompted Congress to pass the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act in 1988. The Cabazon and Morongo Bands ran high-stakes bingo and card games on their reservations; California and Riverside County sought to apply state bingo limits and a county ordinance. The Court held that Public Law 280 lets states apply only criminal/prohibitory laws on reservations, that California's bingo law, which permits bingo for charity, is civil/regulatory, and that federal and tribal interests in self-sufficiency outweigh the state's interest in preventing organised crime, so the state and county laws were preempted. Its prohibitory/regulatory test is cited in the 2025-2026 tribal suits against Kalshi (GL-US-0683) and in every compact dispute.
What this case is about
California v. Cabazon Band of Mission Indians, 480 U.S. 202 (1987), No. 85-1708, is a U.S. Supreme Court judgment on appeal from the Ninth Circuit. It was argued on 9 December 1986 and decided on 25 February 1987 by a 6-3 vote.
The case belongs to the group of Regulators and Attorneys General in Court cases. The Cabazon and Morongo Bands ran high-stakes bingo and card games on their reservations. The State of California and Riverside County tried to apply the state bingo statute and a county card-room ordinance there.
Who is covered
The ruling covers tribes and states in disputes over gambling on Indian lands. The parties were California and Riverside County against the Cabazon Band and the Morongo Band. Justice White wrote for the majority, and Justice Stevens dissented, joined by Justices O'Connor and Scalia.
For the national picture of litigation, see Gambling Lawsuits in United States.
The case arose in California, and the state's current disputes are collected on Is Kalshi Legal in California? Court Status and Every Gambling Lawsuit in California.
Is there a payout?
No payout exists in this case. It was a dispute over regulatory power, the record shows a fund of zero, and no damages, settlement or claim process exists.
Nobody can file a claim. The only outcome was a ruling on who may regulate gambling on reservations.
What the court decided
The Court held that Public Law 280 lets a state apply only its criminal and prohibitory laws on reservations, not civil and regulatory ones. It found California's bingo law, which permits bingo for charity, to be civil and regulatory.
It also held that federal and tribal interests in self-sufficiency outweigh the state's interest in preventing organized crime. The state and county laws were therefore preempted. The Ninth Circuit's judgment was affirmed.
The status is judgment, decided on 25 February 1987. Nothing in the record shows a further step in this case.
Why it matters
Cabazon made tribal gaming a national industry and prompted Congress to pass the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act in 1988. Its prohibitory versus regulatory test is cited in the 2025-2026 tribal suits against Kalshi and in compact disputes.
For the current court status of those suits, see the tracker States Suing Kalshi and States Sued by the CFTC: The Matrix.
Related cases
- Blue Lake Rancheria et al. v. Kalshi, Inc.: a tribal suit against Kalshi, status filed.
- Ysleta del Sur Pueblo v. Texas: a judgment on tribal gaming and state law.
- West Flagler Associates, Ltd. v. Haaland: the Seminole Tribe 2021 compact case.
- West Flagler Associates, Ltd. v. DeSantis: the quo warranto case, dismissed.
- Colorado River Indian Tribes v. National Indian Gaming Commission: the 2006 D.C. Circuit ruling that the commission has no authority over class III gaming operations.
- Inyo County v. Paiute-Shoshone Indians: the 2003 ruling on a search warrant for a casino's employment records.
- Maverick Gaming LLC v. United States: the Washington tribal sports betting suit, dismissed.
Questions people ask
What did California v. Cabazon decide?
The Supreme Court held on 25 February 1987 that California and Riverside County could not apply their bingo and card-room laws on the reservations. Public Law 280 allows only criminal and prohibitory state laws there.
Did Cabazon lead to the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act?
The case prompted Congress to pass the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act in 1988, according to the case record. Cabazon made tribal gaming a national industry.
Why do the Kalshi cases cite Cabazon?
Its prohibitory versus regulatory test is cited in the 2025-2026 tribal suits against Kalshi (GL-US-0683) and in every compact dispute.
Who is involved
Plaintiffs: State of California and County of Riverside (seeking to enforce the state bingo statute and a county card-room ordinance on the reservations)
| Defendants | Cabazon Band of Mission Indians; Morongo Band of Mission Indians |
|---|---|
| Judge | Justice White (majority); Justice Stevens (dissent, joined by O'Connor and Scalia) |
| Claims |
|
Is there a payout?
No payout exists in this case as of 14 Nov 2026.
What happens next
No future date is on the record we hold. The case is closed on the record we hold; later appeals or enforcement steps would be added here.
Timeline
1 dated step on record, oldest first. Future dates come from court notices and can move.
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 25 Feb 1987 | Judgment entered |
Documents and sources
1 primary source (court file, administrator notice, regulator) and 0 secondary. Press is supporting evidence only.
- Court document: law.cornell.edu
| What it supports | Source | Type | Retrieved |
|---|---|---|---|
| No. 85-1708; argued Dec. 9, 1986; decided Feb. 25, 1987; 6-3; White for the Court; Stevens dissenting with O'Connor and Scalia; Ninth Circuit affirmed; Public Law 280 civil/regulatory holding; preemption of state and county gambling laws | law.cornell.edu | primary | 14 Nov 2026 |
Related cases
7 cases in the record share parties, claims or a settlement with this one.
| Case | Court | Status |
|---|---|---|
| California tribes v. Kalshi and Robinhood | U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California; Ninth Circuit (No. 25-7504) | Judgment entered |
| Texas tribal bingo Supreme Court case | U.S. Supreme Court (from the Fifth Circuit) | Judgment entered |
| Florida sports betting compact case | U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia; U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit; U.S. Supreme Court | Judgment entered |
| Florida Supreme Court quo warranto on the Seminole compact | Supreme Court of Florida | Dismissed |
| Colorado River Indian Tribes v. NIGC (2006) | U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (from the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, Judge Bates, 383 F. Supp. 2d 123) | Judgment entered |
| Inyo County v. Paiute-Shoshone (casino records search, 2003) | U.S. Supreme Court (from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 291 F.3d 549) | Judgment entered |
| Washington tribal sports betting monopoly challenge | U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington; Ninth Circuit; U.S. Supreme Court | Dismissed |
Last checked against the sources on 14 Nov 2026. Found an error? Tell us and we correct the record with a dated note.