Archives: Articles

It was early November in 1972, just days before the presidential election that would have Richard Nixon win in a landslide over George McGovern from South Dakota, despite widespread political unrest and the war in Vietnam still raging.

And for many Native Americans, the federal government wasn’t the solution to their problems, it was the root of their problems. This dissatisfaction resulted in the formation of the American Indian Movement (AIM), which occupied the Alcatraz penitentiary in San Francisco from November 1969 to June 1971.

AIM then organized a protest called the “Trail of Broken Treaties,” during which more than 500 Native Americans from across the country showed up at the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) building in Washington, D.C. and took over the offices. For six days, the building was occupied until supplies ran out, patience wore thin and the protestors exited the building, taking with them thousands of documents and a pledge from the government that it would consider the 20 items on their list of demands.

Ironically, Richard Nixon did more for Native Americans than any president before him. He was the first to return land to tribes, along with generous settlements. He appointed the first Native American to head the BIA—Mohawk citizen Louis Bruce—and doubled its budget. Most importantly, he ended the government’s “termination” plan, which was designed to dismantle Native government and eliminate reservations.

In subsequent years, the federal attitude toward Native Americans has ebbed and flowed depending upon the administrations. The Biden administration appointed the first Native American to head the entire Department of the Interior, Deb Haaland, a citizen of the Pueblo of Laguna of New Mexico.

So, since Donald Trump returned to power as a result of the 2024 elections, there have been conflicting views of what he might do to—and for—Indian Country.

Grants and Loans

Jana McKeag, president of Lowry Strategies

Transitions between administrations can often be uneven and uncomfortable. Jana McKeag, president of Lowry Strategies, and one of the original members of the National Indian Gaming Commission (NIGC) in the early 1990s, along with Chairman Tony Hope and Joel Franks, has seen many such transitions.

“This transition is going to be different from other transitions,” she says, “because you usually don’t walk in and then fire people right away. You just don’t go in and slash and burn. The probationary people are low-hanging fruit, because they don’t have protections that permanent employees have. But you look at performance evaluations before you do that, and you do fire the people who are not doing their jobs.”

One of the first things the Trump administration did was to empower the Department Of Government Efficiency (DOGE) to go through the books in every department to determine where the money is going. To effectively identify wasteful spending, the administration froze all federal expenditures on grants and loans. Since tribal governments largely depend upon federal funding, this could be problematic for them depending upon how long the freeze lasts.

Mark Vargas, strategic communications and government affairs consultant

Mark Vargas is a strategic communications and government affairs adviser who works with tribes and organizations in Washington, D.C. He hopes the freeze won’t last long.

“American Indian tribal governments are working with the administration to unfreeze federal grant funding under the Office of Management and Budget memorandum rescinding the federal freeze,” he explains.

“National organizations like the National Congress of American Indians (NCAI) and the Coalition of Large Tribes (COLT) are working with the Congress to document where grants may still be blocked. But the main message from Indian Country is to work with the administration and the Congress, and continue to highlight that Indian programs are based on the federal trust responsibility to Indian tribes, which in turn is based on Indian treaty rights and statutes.”

John Tahsuda is a principal with Navigators Global, an advisory firm in the nation’s capital, and former first deputy assistant secretary in the Office of Indian Affairs under the first Trump administration.

“A majority of tribal funding is self-governance funding,” he says. “That’s primarily contracts, so you can make some changes, but if the federal government goes too far, then you get liability. So I’m assuming that they’re going to treat that as contract services. And the majority of funding is really for basic services—police, fire, health and some other basic government functions. Hopefully, those will get cleared at some point. There will be a short-term impact, however.”

Naming Names

The appointments of North Dakota Governor Doug Burgum as secretary of the interior, and William “Billy” Kirkland III to serve as assistant secretary for Indian Affairs, were well received in Indian Country.

“Former Governor Burgum had a very good relationship with the tribes in his state,” says McKeag. “He understands tribal programs, tribal needs, tribal sovereignty and treaties. And Kirkland is a Navajo who understands how government works.”

Vargas says Burgum’s nomination was met with overwhelming enthusiasm from Indian Country governments, including the five tribes based in North Dakota.

“According to both Secretary Burgum and the five tribes, the relationship was an open-door and positive relationship particularly with respect to their gaming compact negotiations, which were successful,” he says.

John Tahsuda, principal with Navigators Global

Tahsuda confirms that Burgum was a popular choice among tribal leaders.

“My understanding is that he had well over 200 tribal support letters that were sent during his nomination journey,” he says. “That’s a huge number. That sounds like a lot of folks were positive and hopeful about his time as secretary.”

And he’s enthusiastic about Kirkland, who worked in the previous Trump administration.

“It’s great to have somebody that’s going to lead the Indian Affairs hallway who has his own connections to help bring support and attention to the priorities of Indian affairs,” says Tahsuda.

McKeag also believes both appointments are good for Indian Country but has other areas of concern.

“I don’t know from day to day what we can expect from this administration,” she says. “I do have some issues to consider, and one is the NIGC, because under Biden we had only two commissioners, no chairman. We haven’t had a chairman since Sequoia (Simermeyer) left. Jeannie Hovland was a Republican selection. (Acting Chair) Sharon Avery is a Democrat and the required tribal member. So that leaves one position open. They could select a white, non-Indian Republican. And God knows what that would do.”

Biden Bids

In the waning days of the Biden administration, the Interior Department OK’d three separate off-reservation land-into-trust rulings—the Coquille Indian Tribe, the Scotts Valley Band of Pomo Indians, and the Koi Nation. The decisions were controversial because not only some of the local communities opposed them, but some neighboring tribes also disputed the idea that the lands were part of their former range.

McKeag believes the Trump administration will take another look.

“They’re clearly off reservation,” she admits, “but I understand why (former BIA head) Brian Newland made a lot of those kinds of decisions, just like Kevin Washburn did under the Obama administration. And those two gentlemen were very good assistant secretaries for Indian Affairs overall. But I think they opened up a bit of a can of worms. That’s a slippery slope to commercial gaming.”

Tahsuda agrees, but thinks it might be hard to reverse.

“In general, there are a lot of late decisions as an administration is winding down,” he says. “And when it comes to gaming land decisions, each of them really stands on its own. They have to be examined on their own merits, and the law that applies to them. I do think that, in the waning days of the last administration, they really were stretching the rules as applied even in prior Democratic administrations. But if the land already went into trust, then reversing those decisions becomes much more difficult.”

Vargas says it’s really too late to challenge.

“These decisions are final and will stand in the Trump administration,” he says. “The Trump Department of Justice is already defending in federal court challenges to the Coquille tribe and Koi Nation record of decisions.”

On the other hand, President Trump showed support during his campaign for the bid of the Lumbee tribe of South Carolina for federal recognition, a process that can take—and has taken—decades. The president issued an executive order for Secretary Burgum to come up with a plan to give the Lumbees that recognition.

Vargas believes the tribe has a good case.

“Each individual recognition case is unique, but the executive order for the North Carolina Lumbee tribe does indicate a friendly terrain for examining recognition petitions,” he says.

As for other tribes seeking recognition, Tahsuda doesn’t believe the Lumbee decision would affect their bids.

“There’s a relatively small group that has gone through the process over the years,” he says. “But where those decisions were made, they were very close. And recently there were changes in the regulations, so there’s no way for them to get reconsidered under the new, somewhat looser rules.

“It was actually the intent of Congress and of the department when the regulations for recognition were established, that when you had a close call, the agency could say maybe Congress should make this decision. So right now, probably the easiest thing is legislation. But if the president supports it, then that would be great.”

Engaging Energy

With the “drill, baby, drill” philosophy of the Trump team, tribes that have been handcuffed by environmental regulations in their attempts to access energy on reservation lands should be happy, says Vargas.

“There are a large number of energy-producing tribes that will welcome federal support to remove and streamline leasing barriers.”

McKeag agrees.

“One of the priorities of the Trump administration is energy, and he’s trying to move away from clean energy,” she explains. “This isn’t a gaming-related issue, but it’s been more difficult for tribes to dig and market their natural resources, particularly if there happens to be an energy company in a facility close to a reservation. There have been so many obstacles. That would be beneficial to a lot of them, because many of them happen to be the less fortunate tribes in remote locations.”

Tahsuda believes that the energy-related tribes will welcome the new administration.

“The focus on energy is great,” he says. “That’s something that we did in the first Trump administration. It seems pretty clear that would be a huge benefit to Indian Country. Those tribes that have energy resources were really just put on the sidelines for the last four years. So I think helping them out will help a lot of tribes, and tribes that don’t have gaming really depend on those resources.

Cause for Concern?

While the Trump administration has ramped up very quickly in many areas, it’s still somewhat unclear how the second Trump term will impact tribes.

McKeag is taking a wait-and-see approach.

“I think it’s going to be a mixed bag,” she says. “But we still have powerful tribal advocates on the Hill, people like Senator Tom Cole and Congressman Ken Calvert. So I think we’ll be all right.

Tahsuda reflects on his time with Interior in the first term.

“In the first administration I thought we were received very well,” he says. “When you also consider the White House Intergovernmental Office, they actually welcomed the tribes coming directly to them.”

Vargas doesn’t see any reason to worry, but believes there is a lot of hard work ahead.

“Given the federal government’s long history of mistreatment of tribal nations over decades, tribal nations are wise to build strong relationships with every new administration,” he recommends.

“The best opportunities for tribes will be to link and maximize their goals of economic development, improved health care and energy development with the goals of the Trump administration. Additionally, the Coalition of Large Tribes enthusiastically supported both Secretary Burgum and Secretary Kennedy’s confirmations, indicating a new level of enthusiasm with this new administration.”

Of the 38 states that have legal sports betting, tribes in 10 are a key factor. In some cases, Indian Country was the driving force behind legislation. In others, tribes agreed to pay taxes. And in still others, Indian Country is the only place consumers can place a bet.

The structure is different in nearly every state. And in the last 12 months, the rules have changed. The U.S. Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) is tasked with interpreting and implementing the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA). Passed by Congress in 1988, IGRA clearly allows for Class III gambling on tribal land. In February 2024, a new BIA interpretation made it clear that the federal government backs off-reservation digital sports betting if a state agrees.

Four months later, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear a case that made it so Florida’s Seminole Tribe not only has a monopoly, but can offer off-reservation digital sports betting. The tribe does not pay a tax, but does have a revenue-share agreement with the state. The case, in which two parimutuels sued Governor Ron DeSantis for signing a compact they believed was invalid, may well have created a roadmap for tribes in other states to follow.

Three of 10 Biggest Tribal States Don’t Have Legal Wagering

In July 2024, a Colorado tribe filed its own federal lawsuit, saying the state is denying it the opportunity to offer legal digital betting. Southern Ute Tribal Chairman Melvin Baker said at the time that because the case “held that the Seminole tribe was entitled to engage in statewide sports betting in Florida, any legal objection to the Southern Ute and Ute Mountain from engaging in statewide sports betting is gone.”

The case is currently with the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado, awaiting a response from the state and Governor Jared Polis. The deadline for his response in March 7.

The key difference between the Florida and Colorado lawsuits is that in Florida, the state wanted to make a deal with the Seminoles. In Colorado, that does not appear to be the case.

Nearly seven years after the Supreme Court gave states the right to decide if they wanted legal sports betting, three of the 10 states with the biggest number of tribes do not have it. In California, the tribes are clearly driving the conversation and have plans to bring a ballot initiative to legalize in 2028.

In Oklahoma, Indian Country is waiting for Governor Kevin Stitt to term-limit out for the chance. And in Minnesota, where the tribes, charitable gaming and horse racetracks seemingly hammered out a deal ahead of the 2025 session, hopes all but died in committee on the eve of Valentine’s Day.

For those states yet to legalize sports betting or considering online gaming, the current landscape offers much to study and learn from. Here’s a look at the highlights from 10 states in which Indian Country offers legal digital or retail sports betting.

Arizona

Tribes in Arizona gave up the right to exclusivity when they agreed to a deal in 2021 that allotted 10 digital sports betting licenses to Indian Country and 10 to professional sports teams. The hitch is that there are 16 gaming tribes and so far, only eight professional sports teams that meet that definition. So while six Arizona tribes are shut out of offering digital betting, there are two unclaimed pro-sports team licenses.

Under the terms of the compact, all of Arizona’s tribes can offer in-person wagering and digital betting on the reservation. But off reservation, the 10 tribes licensed to offer online sports betting are regulated by the state and pay the same 10 percent tax rate as commercial operators.

Colorado

There is currently no tribal digital sports betting in Colorado. In 2019, Colorado’s legislature was among the first to legalize digital sports betting after the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (PASPA) was overturned. At that time, the Southern Ute and Ute Mountain Ute tribes opened retail sportsbooks and eventually began offering digital sports betting. Neither tribe paid tax to the state on bets taken in-person or online.

The Southern Utes partnered with US Bookmaking and became the first tribe in the U.S. to offer off-reservation online wagering in 2020. But by 2023, both tribes had shuttered their sites due to a conflict with the Colorado regulator. Last summer, the Southern Utes filed suit against the state.

The Mountain Utes later joined. In the lawsuit, the tribes say the state has breached their existing gaming compacts, which date to the 1990s. The compacts allow the tribes to have “those gaming activities and bet amounts that are identical” to ones authorized in the state. In essence, whatever commercial operators are allowed to offer, the tribe can too.

But the state argues that while that may well be true, if the tribes want to offer digital betting, they should pay the state a 10 percent tax and be regulated by the state. The tribes argue that is a violation of their sovereignty. The workaround for many tribes in this situation is to pay the state a revenue share or a set fee for the right to offer digital betting.

According to the complaint, the state’s actions are “motivated by money. Sports betting regulated by Colorado is subject to a 10 percent tax, whereas no such tax could ever apply to tribal gaming under federal law. Therefore, the state sought to freeze the tribe out of internet sports betting.”

Baker said that his tribe has little appetite for legal action, but was forced to “take critical action to uphold equal and fair treatment of our sovereign rights.”

A solution would be to renegotiate the compacts and settle on annual payment to the state for the right to offer digital betting.

Connecticut

Like the Arizona tribes, Connecticut’s two tribes agreed to give up exclusivity and be regulated and taxed by the state. The Mashantucket Pequot and Mohegan tribes each have a casino retail sportsbook, and partnered with DraftKings and FanDuel, respectively, for digital wagering. The law they supported also allows the Connecticut Lottery to operate a digital platform and 15 stand-alone sportsbooks. The lottery first partnered with Rush Street Interactive, and then moved on to Fanatics Sportsbook.

The tribes, like the lottery, are taxed 18 percent of adjusted gross revenue for digital betting. They also must adhere to any changes to the state law. There is currently a bill in the state legislature that would put a cap on how much a sportsbook can hold. The one-page proposal does not indicate what the maximum would be.

Florida

Florida’s Seminole Tribe may be the envy of tribes across the U.S. when it comes to gambling and compacting with the state. While Colorado’s tribes are suing in the hopes of getting a similar deal, the Seminoles and the state easily agreed to a hub-and-spoke model that not only allows the Seminoles to offer digital betting on their own platform, but gives them a cut of any sports betting offered by anyone else in the state. Parimutuels can partner with the Seminoles to offer sports betting, but must pay the tribe 40 percent of revenue.

Under the terms of the 2021 compact, the Seminoles must pay the state $2.5 billion over the first five years in revenue share for all current forms of gambling. In total, the tribe agreed to pay the state $20 billion over 30 years. The Seminoles do not make their financials public.

The Seminoles own seven casinos around the state, and last November made an agreement with West Flagler and Associates (WFA)—the plaintiff in the federal case that could have nullified the compact—to offer betting on jai alai at WFA’s parimutuels.

In their deal, the Seminoles maintained their sovereignty and exclusivity. Having a 30-year compact that protects the tribe from being regulated and taxed by the state also means that the Seminoles are protected from the whims of the state legislature. In several other states, lawmakers have already increased sports betting taxes on commercial operators.

The compact lays the groundwork for the Seminoles to offer online casino, as well.

Michigan

The first state in which tribes agreed to be regulated and taxed by the state, Michigan’s tribal gaming setup is unique. Unlike in Arizona where there was a cap on the number of tribal betting licenses available, in Michigan, there is one per tribe. Indian Country did give up exclusivity by agreeing to a deal that allows the state’s three Detroit casinos—owned by Mandalay Entertainment, MGM and Penn Entertainment—one wagering platform each.

But it also leveled the playing field for tribes. Many of Michigan’s tribes are in the northern part of the state or on the state’s Upper Peninsula, far from a major metropolitan center. But partnering with a commercial betting partner like Caesars Sportsbook (Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians) or DraftKings (Bay Mills Indian Community) created a significant new revenue stream despite location. In many cases, those companies also invested in the tribes’ retail casinos.

Sports betting platforms, including those tethered to a tribal casino, are taxed at 8.4 percent of gross gaming revenue. The digital sportsbooks are regulated by the Michigan Gaming Control Board.

Nebraska

Voters agreed to legalize sports betting on the November 2020 ballot and three years later the first bets were taken. The Winnebago Tribe is a key player on the Nebraska gaming scene, but in this case, the tribe is regulated and taxed by the state.

State racetracks—not the tribes—can be licensed to offer betting, though the the Winnebago Tribe, through its commercial arm, Ho-Chunk, Inc., is operating the War Horse Casino brand in partnership with tracks in Lincoln, Omaha and Sioux City.

Lawmakers have been considering adding digital wagering, but have not done so yet.

New Mexico

In October 2018, the Santa Ana Star Casino near Albuquerque opened a sportsbook. There was no new law to allow sports betting and no compact renegotiation. Rather, the tribe believed that because it has exclusivity to Class III gaming and would be offering it on its land, that it would be permissible under IGRA.

The state attorney general’s office at the time said that it would “monitor” the situation and encourage the legislature to pass a law around sports betting. But five and a half years later, there is not one, and four other tribal casinos are also offering in-person wagering.

The upshot? New Mexico’s tribes have their own regulatory body and are not beholden to the state. They also do not pay taxes.

Oregon

Like New Mexico, Oregon’s tribes offer self-governed in-person sports betting. Tribal casinos already existed before PASPA was overturned.

The Oregon Lottery offers the only digital platform in the state in partnership with DraftKings. Once that launched, tribal casinos began to explore how they could get in the game. There is no state law that allows the tribes to compete with the lottery, but under IGRA, offering retail wagering on the reservations is legal.

The tribes do not pay gambling taxes.

Washington

While Florida might seem to offer a blueprint for tribal gaming, Washington state was a pioneer in terms of allowing it. The state legislature happily crafted a law that allowed Washington’s 29 tribes to add sportsbooks to their casinos. In 2020, when the legislature passed the law, the tribes said they did not want digital betting. It’s likely that will change over time, but Washington’s law allows tribes to self-govern betting, and they do not pay taxes.

The Washington tribes do pay 1.63 percent of net casino win to certain organizations, according to the American Gaming Association, but they remain sovereign and in control of gambling.

Wisconsin

In July 2021, the Oneida Nation announced that it had renegotiated its compact with the state to offer in-person sports betting. The deal happened quietly and is likely the first of 11 that will ultimately be made.

At that time, Oneida Nation Chairman Brandon Yellowbird Stevens explained that the state’s tribal compact comes up for renegotiation in a specific order, and each has a “Me, too” clause. That essentially means that if one tribe can offer sports betting, then all others can negotiate it into their compacts.

No law was passed and betting is limited to on-reservation. But Wisconsin’s tribes have so far maintained sovereignty and exclusivity. They do not pay taxes to the state and are regulated by a tribal gaming commission.

A Case for Tribal Sports Betting

This tribal lawsuit could set a precedent beyond the West Flagler decision

A key date in the Colorado Ute tribes’ sports betting lawsuit against the state is looming. In October, Governor Jared Polis’ team filed a motion to have the case dismissed. By March 7, after multiple extensions, the Southern Utes and Ute Mountain Utes must respond.

How the court rules on the motion will determine whether the tribes’ claim that the state has cut them out of digital sports betting will move forward. If it does, the ultimate decision could be a game-changer for tribes around the U.S.

Per the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA), the tribes have the right to offer in-person sports betting on their reservations. In May 2020, the state of Colorado launched digital sports betting for commercial companies. Every major online sports betting company is live in the state, as well as some unique offerings, including BetMonarch, Circa Sports and Sporttrade. Missing are two tribal platforms, at least one of which was live for several years.

Days after the the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear West Flagler v. Haaland, the Southern Ute tribe filed against the state. The West Flagler case, decided in the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, made it legal for the Florida Seminoles to offer statewide mobile betting.

The Ute Mountain Utes joined the Colorado lawsuit in September. The case is in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado. As it unfolds, tribes around the country will be watching, and one tribal attorney who wished to remain anonymous said if the court finds in the Ute tribes’ favor, the decision could be more far-reaching than the West Flagler decision.

‘Magic Language’ Needed?

At issue in Colorado—as it was in Florida—is whether or not the tribes can offer digital sports betting off the reservation. The difference is that there is specific language in the Seminoles’ 2021 compact that essentially deems a bet taken anywhere in the state is considered to have been placed in Indian Country if it flows through a server on tribal land.

“The Colorado compacts do not have that potentially magic language that deems that a bet is considered placed where received,” the lawyer said. “Whether or not you need that language is not clear, and this lawsuit may clarify that.”

If the court decides that the language is not needed in compacts, it could clear the way for tribes in other states to have an easier path toward offering online sports betting—and eventually iGaming.

State Wants Tribes to Pay Taxes

Another key issue in the case is whether or not the Ute tribes should be subject to the same 10 percent tax on gross gaming revenue that commercial operators pay. But tribes don’t generally pay taxes to the states in which they are located. Many do, however, pay a revenue share to the state.

For example, the 2021 Seminole-Florida compact requires that tribe to pay the state $500 million per year for the first five years of its 30-year deal. In total, the tribe committed to paying the state $2.5 billion for those five years.

In Colorado, the Ute tribes were offering digital betting without paying a tax or revenue share. Their compacts do not contemplate this and they don’t appear to address the issue in the lawsuit. Should the tribes agree to pay a tax, they would also be regulated by the state. Another option is to recompact and create a revenue share.

The West Flagler decision coupled with the U.S. Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Indian Affairs draft final rules changed the landscape for tribal betting. The BIA specifically addresses digital wagering off tribal land. And it ultimately interprets IGRA to mean that tribes can take bets from anywhere in a state, if the bets run through tribal servers. But those are federal laws and regulations—tribes must still compact with their states.

“States and tribes are allowed to negotiate compacting solutions to off-reservation gaming,” former National Indian Gaming Commission chair Jonodev O. Chaudhuri said during a panel at the Global Gaming Expo in October. “That doesn’t automatically legalize all off-reservation gaming or all hub-and-spoke models.”

In Colorado, the Ute compacts, which date to 1995, do not directly contemplate digital gaming. And they don’t include the “magic wording.” The looming question is: Will that matter?

“In Part 293, (the BIA) was careful to use the word ‘may,’” the lawyer who requested anonymity said. “But the D.C. Circuit seemed to only be concerned that the person making the wager on state lands is complying with state law. I think the right reading of the D.C. Circuit is that you don’t need that language. You do need state law to make the wager lawful. But you don’t need to go so far as deeming the wager as placed at the site of the server.”

Minnesota’s casino gaming landscape is defined exclusively by tribal gaming operations, regulated through compacts between the state and sovereign tribal nations.

A vital component of the state’s overall economy, this structure reflects both the state’s respect for tribal sovereignty and the critical role tribal gaming plays in supporting economic development and self-determination for Minnesota’s Native American communities. In this article, The Innovation Group provides historical context for both tribal nations and gaming in the state, outlines and examines current gaming segments, explores the opportunities and challenges around the introduction of sports wagering, and illustrates the overall market potential.

Minnesota’s Tribal Nations

Minnesota gaming cannot be understood without first recognizing the rich history and ongoing presence of the state’s 11 federally recognized tribal nations.

The Dakota people, Minnesota’s first inhabitants, have lived in the region since time immemorial, with their traditional territories spanning much of what is now southern and central Minnesota. The Ojibwe people began arriving in the region in the 1700s, gradually establishing communities across northern Minnesota’s forests and lakes region.

Today, Minnesota’s tribal nations include seven Ojibwe bands (Bois Forte, Fond du Lac, Grand Portage, Leech Lake, Mille Lacs, Red Lake, and White Earth) and four Dakota communities (Lower Sioux, Prairie Island, Shakopee Mdewakanton, and Upper Sioux). Despite their distinct histories and traditions, these nations have found common ground in their approach to economic development, particularly through gaming operations.

The Minnesota Indian Gaming Association (MIGA) serves as a unified voice on gaming matters for most of these nations, demonstrating how historical rivals have evolved into powerful modern allies in pursuit of economic self-sufficiency.

The tribes’ gaming operations reflect their diverse geographical and economic circumstances. Some nations, particularly those near the Twin Cities metropolitan area, have developed world-class gaming and entertainment destinations that generate substantial revenues for tribal programs.

Others, especially those in more remote locations, operate smaller facilities that, while more modest in scale, play crucial roles in providing employment and supporting essential tribal services. This diversity in scale and scope demonstrates both the opportunities and challenges facing tribal gaming in Minnesota.

History of Gaming in Minnesota

Minnesota’s relationship with regulated gaming evolved through distinct phases, from early charitable gambling to today’s sophisticated tribal gaming operations. The state first entered the gaming sector in 1945 by legalizing charitable gambling, allowing organizations to raise funds through bingo and raffles. In 1981, pull-tabs were introduced, laying the groundwork for what would become one of the nation’s largest charitable gaming markets.

The most significant transformation in Minnesota gaming began with the federal Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) of 1988. Unlike many states that initially resisted tribal gaming expansion, Minnesota moved quickly to embrace the opportunity, becoming one of the first states to negotiate tribal-state compacts. By 1991, all 11 tribal nations in Minnesota had secured compacts allowing them to conduct both Class II and Class III gaming operations.

Minnesota’s approach to these compacts proved uniquely beneficial to tribal economic development. Unlike many other states that demand moderate to significant revenue sharing, Minnesota’s compacts only require tribes to cover the costs of regulatory oversight. This arrangement allows tribes to retain 100 percent of their gaming revenue—a crucial factor that enables tribes to reinvest in their operations and communities, and that contributes to the market’s internal sustainability and external competitiveness to this day.

This compact structure also has proven particularly important for smaller operations that might not have remained viable under a revenue-sharing requirement.

Tribal Casino Market

Today, Minnesota’s tribal gaming market comprises 19 casinos operated by 11 federally recognized tribes across the state. The scale and success of these operations vary significantly based largely on geography and market access. Combined, these facilities offer approximately 20,000 slot machines and 275 table games as well as extensive hospitality amenities, including hotels, restaurants, entertainment venues and conference facilities.

The market demonstrates a clear geographic divide in terms of revenue generation potential. Casinos in or near the Minneapolis-St. Paul metropolitan area, such as Mystic Lake (Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community) and Treasure Island (Prairie Island Indian Community), benefit from consistent access to a population base of more than 3.5 million people. These operations have developed into full-scale entertainment destinations, featuring luxury hotels, multiple dining venues, and significant convention space.

In contrast, casinos in northern Minnesota operate in a fundamentally different market environment. While properties like Fortune Bay (Bois Forte Band) and Seven Clans Casinos (Red Lake Nation) successfully attract tourism and seasonal visitors, their more remote locations and smaller year-round population base create distinct operational challenges. These facilities have adapted by developing unique amenities suited to their markets—for instance, Fortune Bay’s acclaimed golf course and Seven Clans’ water park attract visitors beyond traditional gaming customers.

Based on regional data from the National Indian Gaming Commission (NIGC) and industry sources familiar with the Minnesota market, total tribal gaming revenue is estimated between $1.75 billion and $1.95 billion annually. However, this revenue is not evenly distributed, with metro-area casinos capturing a disproportionate share of the market. Despite these disparities, even smaller operations play vital roles in their local economies, often ranking among the largest employers in their regions.

Charitable Gaming

While tribal casinos form the foundation of Minnesota’s gaming industry, other forms of legal gambling contribute significantly to the state’s gaming economy. These segments, particularly charitable gaming, have evolved alongside tribal casinos, sometimes creating complex dynamics around market share and gaming policy.

Minnesota hosts one of the nation’s largest charitable gaming markets, dominated by pull-tab operations. While traditional charitable gaming activities like raffles and bingo continue to serve rural and urban communities alike, they represent less than 5 percent of charitable gaming receipts. The real engine of charitable gaming lies in pull-tabs, especially their electronic variant.

Legalized in 1981, traditional paper pull-tabs became a fixture in bars and taverns across Minnesota. However, the market transformed dramatically in 2012 when the legislature authorized electronic pull-tabs to help finance the Minnesota Vikings’ U.S. Bank Stadium. This initiative proved remarkably successful—so much so that the stadium debt was retired 23 years ahead of schedule.

The path to electronic pull-tabs’ success sparked significant controversy. Minnesota’s tribal nations have consistently opposed electronic pull-tabs, arguing they are a violation of their exclusive rights to slot machine gaming under the state compacts. While early adoption was slow, electronic pull-tabs gained enormous popularity with the introduction of features like free plays, bonuses, and an “open all” function allowing players to reveal all three lines with a single tap—functionality that critics noted closely resembles slot machine operation.

This similarity led to continued legal challenges, culminating in a February 2023 Minnesota Court of Appeals ruling and subsequent legislation (HF1983) prohibiting the aforementioned “slot-like“ functions on electronic pull-tabs, effective this year.

The debate continues, with current legislative efforts seeking to repeal this prohibition. Advocates for repeal argue that removing these features would significantly harm charitable organizations and their beneficiaries, while tribal interests maintain that clear operational delineation between electronic pull-tabs and slot machines is crucial to tribal exclusivity and the gaming compact framework.

Other Gaming Segments

The Minnesota State Lottery, established in 1988, represents another important gaming segment, with annual sales approaching $800 million in FY2024 (the third-highest total on record). These revenues primarily support environmental and educational initiatives across the state.

The state’s parimutuel sector, comprising Canterbury Park and Running Aces, offers both horse racing and card room operations. Last year, parimutuel wagering on horse races reached nearly $80 million while card rooms generated $87.8 million in revenue. These venues have established themselves within Minnesota’s gaming landscape through poker, blackjack and other table games, operating under separate regulatory frameworks from tribal casinos while competing for many of the same gaming customers.

Expansion & Amenities Development

Minnesota’s tribal casino landscape has evolved significantly from its early days of bingo halls to today’s multi-faceted entertainment destinations. This evolution is particularly evident in the Twin Cities market, where Mystic Lake Casino Hotel (Minnesota’s largest casino) features a 766-room hotel tower, extensive convention facilities, and multiple entertainment venues, setting standards for amenity development in the region.

Similar expansion has occurred at other properties, with Treasure Island Resort & Casino developing significant entertainment capabilities, including a 16,000-seat outdoor amphitheater, substantial RV park facilities, and a water park.

These investments reflect the industry’s shift toward diverse entertainment offerings beyond traditional gaming. The trend continues with more recent developments like Grand Casino’s comprehensive renovation of 1,100 hotel rooms at its Mille Lacs and Hinckley properties in 2024. And expansion is not unique to the Minneapolis metro; Seven Clans Casino Warroad’s also recently expanded, adding a new sports bar and gaming space for more than 100 machines.

These ongoing investments respond to both changing consumer preferences and competitive pressures from neighboring states. Iowa and Wisconsin, offering both commercial and tribal gaming, have pushed Minnesota operators to continually enhance their facilities and amenities, especially those properties near state borders where out-of-state venues actively compete for Minnesota customers.

Sports Betting

Sports betting represents a significant potential expansion of Minnesota’s gaming landscape. While aforementioned neighboring states like Iowa and Wisconsin already have embraced legal sports wagering, Minnesota’s path to legalization has been complex, with the state’s tribes playing a central role in the ongoing discussions.

Several other politically powerful stakeholders also are influencing would-be legislation: the professional sports teams (who stand to benefit from large sponsorship deals), racetracks (whose influence continues to enable them to benefit from casino gaming-adjacent efforts), charities (who don’t want to lose market share of the state’s gaming economy, and who also carry substantial legislative weight), and national and multinational sportsbook operators (whose sheer size and revenue allow them to wield tremendous lobbying power).

Above all these interests stand the tribal nations, whose sovereign rights and economic interests historically have shaped, and often constrained, Minnesota’s gaming expansion. While tribes operate all casino gaming in the state, sports betting’s mobile market creates unique regulatory challenges that have forced tribes to consider new operating frameworks.

The 2023 legislative session showed promising momentum, marked by rare bipartisan cooperation and unprecedented agreement among key stakeholders. MIGA expressed support for sports betting legislation that would maintain tribal control over the market. This marked a significant shift from previous years, where tribal opposition to any gaming occurring off-reservation had been a major roadblock to legalization efforts.

Despite this progress and continued stakeholder alignment into 2024-2025, new challenges have emerged. While the fundamental framework—including tribal control of the market—has broad support, the specific requirements around responsible gaming and problem gambling protections have become significant points of contention.

Notwithstanding seemingly strong backing from tribes, teams and tracks alike, Senator Matt Klein’s SF757 failed to advance from committee due largely to debates over such measures. The political divide, which is not entirely along party lines, is between those who believe that mobile sports betting is a social ill requiring the country’s most stringent consumer protection measures and those who believe that these measures would cripple the industry’s ability to effectively operate.

For example, the bill legislates a default setting for maximum daily deposit ($500) and loss ($500). And while a player would be able to change settings to make this less restrictive, the bill also would require this change to not take effect for seven days (yet by contrast, player requests to make these values more restrictive would be required to take effect immediately).

Further, upon hitting a limit, operators would have to notify the commissioner, who would notify other operators, creating the operational nightmare of books having to limit players in real time based on commissioner notifications. Perhaps a larger issue, the legislation mandates a three-hour “cooling off” period after any deposit, during which bettors would be unable to wager. Such a constraint would be unimaginable at a casino ATM.

These restrictions would create operational friction that many industry stakeholders argue would push consumers toward illegal offshore betting sites, where no consumer protections exist and where the state generates no tax revenue. Furthermore, operators contend these measures go far beyond responsible gaming practices seen in any other U.S. jurisdiction, making Minnesota’s market potentially unviable before it begins.

The current legislative landscape includes multiple bills under consideration, but achieving consensus on these specific regulatory details has proven challenging. This situation underscores a crucial dynamic in Minnesota’s gaming policy: while there is growing acceptance of sports betting in principle, any expansion of w

The tribes, having shown unprecedented willingness to embrace sports betting under the right conditions, now find themselves in the unusual position of balancing the operational needs of their would-be commercial partners and the evolving political realities of their state’s (and the country’s) views on gaming. This demonstrates well how dramatically the conversation has shifted from previous years’ debates over tribal exclusivity to more fundamental questions about market and political viability.

A Look Ahead

Minnesota’s gaming industry stands as a testament to the economic and political influence of the state’s tribal nations. From the early compact negotiations that established tribal gaming exclusivity to current debates over sports betting legislation, tribes have consistently shaped gaming policy while adapting to evolving market conditions. The disparity between metro and rural casino operations highlights both the opportunities and challenges facing tribal gaming, yet all operations continue to provide crucial economic support for tribal communities.

As Minnesota considers expanding into sports betting and grapples with questions around electronic pull-tabs, the fundamental partnership between the state and its tribal nations remains central to gaming policy discussions. This relationship, built on respect for tribal sovereignty and recognition of gaming’s role in supporting tribal self-sufficiency, continues to distinguish Minnesota’s approach to gaming regulation and development from other states.

Looking ahead, Minnesota’s gaming industry faces both opportunities and challenges. While market saturation and competition from neighboring states create pressure for innovation and investment, the industry’s strong foundation in tribal gaming provides stability and clear policy frameworks for future development.