- Details
- By Jenna Kunze
Beginning today, the Supreme Court of the United States will hear two oral arguments in cases both calling into question tribal sovereignty.
In one, Ysleta del Sur Pueblo v. Texas, the court will rule on whether two federally recognized tribes in Texas have the authority to regulate gaming on their lands.
In 1987, one year before the U.S. Indian Gaming Regulatory Act was approved by Congress, the Alabama-Coushatta Tribes of Texas and the Ysleta Del Sur Pueblo were granted federal recognition through the Indian Tribes of Texas Restoration Act. At that time, the Tribes agreed to a prohibition on gamibling.
Want more Native News? Get the free daily newsletter today.
For decades, the Ysleta del Sur Pueblo, a reservation near El Paso, has tried to introduce certain types of gaming prohibited under the act, including electronic bingo, to its casino. Other tribes in Texas under the 1988 Indian Gaming Regulatory Act are able to offer bingo at their tribal casinos, such as the Kickapoo Tribe of Texas.
In oral arguments, the Supreme Court will hear if the Ysleta del Sur Pueblo and the Alabama-Coushatta Tribes of Texas should be governed by Indian Gaming Regulatory Act or the Texas Restoration Act.
In the second case, the court will hear Denezpi v. United States and assess whether or not a conviction in tribal court bars a tribal member from prosecution in U.S. district court for the same crime.
In this case, a citizen of the Navajo Nation was accused of a sexual offense against another Navajo Nation citizen on the Ute Mountain Ute Indian Reservation in Colorado in 2017.
The offender was arrested and charged by a federal law enforcement officer and sentenced to140 days of jail time by the Court of Indian Offenses. Six months later, the offender was indicted by a federal grand jury for aggravated sexual abuse. He was tried and convicted by a jury in federal district court and sentenced to 360 months in prison.
Justices will rule on whether or not that “double jeopardy” conviction and punishment was a violation of tribal sovereignty.
More Stories Like This
50 Years of Self-Determination: How a Landmark Act Empowered Tribal Sovereignty and Transformed Federal-Tribal RelationsSan Carlos Apache Tribe Applauds Federal Court Ruling Blocking Transfer of Sacred Oak Flat Land
Federal Court Halts Destruction of Oak Flat
Jamul Indian Village Celebrates Historic Land Reclamation with Passage of S. 3857
Little Shell Tribe Breaks Ground on Ceremonial Center to Honor Culture, Community, and Future
Can we take a minute to talk about tribal sovereignty?
Our mission draws from the warrior spirit that has sustained Indigenous peoples for generations — the same spirit that drives us to stand guard over tribal rights through relentless investigation and fearless reporting.
Sovereignty isn't just a concept – it's the foundation of Native nations' right to govern, protect our lands, and preserve our cultures. Every story we publish strengthens tribal sovereignty.
Unlike mainstream media, we center Indigenous voices and report directly from Native communities. When we cover land rights, water protection, or tribal governance, we're not just sharing news – we're documenting our living history and defending our future.
Our journalism is powered by readers, not shareholders. If you believe in the importance of Native-led media in protecting tribal sovereignty, consider supporting our work today.
