201. California v. Cabazon Band of Mission Indians. February 25,1987
In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

314 201. California v. Cabazon Band of Mission Indians February 25, 1987 In this early case relating to tribal bingo operations the United States Supreme Court decided that federal and tribal interests preempt state law in regulating or prohibiting bingo games run by Indian tribes. Three justices dissented. . . . . The Court has consistently recognized that Indian tribes retain “attributes of sovereignty over both their members and their territory” . . . and that “tribal sovereignty is dependent on, and subordinate to, only the Federal Government, not the States.” . . . It is clear, however, that state laws may be applied to tribal Indians on their reservations if Congress has expressly so provided. Here, the State insists that Congress has twice given its express consent: first in Pub. L. 280 in 1953 . . . and second in the Organized Crime Control Act in 1970. . . . We disagree in both respects. . . . We conclude that the State’s interest in preventing the infiltration of the tribal bingo enterprises by organized crime does not justify state regulations of the tribal bingo enterprises in light of the compelling federal and tribal interests supporting them. State regulation would impermissibly infringe on tribal government, and this conclusion applies equally to the county’s attempted regulation of the Cabazon card club. We therefore affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals. . . . [480 U.S. Reports, 207, 221–22.] 202. Amendments to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act February 3, 1988 The Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971 was hailed at the time of its passage as a revolutionary solution to native land claims in Alaska. As the years passed, however, dissatisfactions were voiced, and there was fear that the end of restrictions on alienating land to non-Natives in 1991 would mean loss of the land. The amendments passed did not quiet all fears, but they were a significant step toward resolving problems arising from the original legislation. An Act to amend the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act to provide Alaska Natives with certain options for the continued ownership of lands and corporate shares received pursuant to the Act, and for other purposes. . . . . congressional findings and declaration of policy Sec. 2. The Congress finds and declares that— (1) the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act was enacted in 1971 to achieve a fair and just settlement of all aboriginal land and hunting and fishing claims by Natives and Native groups of Alaska with maximum participation by Natives in decisions affecting their rights and property. (2) the settlement enabled Natives to participate in the subsequent expansion of Alaska’s economy, encouraged efforts to address serious health and welfare problems in Native villages, and sparked a resurgence of interest in the cultural heritage of the Native peoples of Alaska; (3) despite these achievements and Congress’s desire that the settlement be accomplished rapidly without litigation and in conformity with the real economic and social needs of Natives, the complexity of the land conveyance process and frequent and costly litigation have delayed implementation of the settlement and diminished its value; (4) Natives have differing opinions as to whether the Native Corporation, as originally structured by the Alaska Native ...