Closing Casinos during COVID-19\u27s First Wave: Comparing Tribal and First Nation Pandemic Responses to State and Provincial Executive Orders

Our project compared Tribal and First Nation casinos’ responses to the first wave of COVID-19 to their neighboring provincial and state governments. We evaluated whether Tribal and First Nation casinos closed earlier, at the same time as, or after their neighboring provincial and state governments issued orders closing bars and restaurants. We also evaluated whether Tribal and First Nation casinos reopened earlier, at the same time as, or after neighboring provincial and state governments began lifting restrictions on bars and restaurants. We found that in the United States, the median Tribal casino closure date was 1 day before the surrounding state closed bars and restaurants and the median Tribal casino reopening date was 21 days after the surrounding state allowed partial bar and restaurant reopenings. In Canada, the median First Nation casino closure date was 3 days before the surrounding province ordered business closures and the median reopening date was 27 days after the surrounding province allowed partial business reopenings

Casino Diplomacy in Minnesota: Lessons from America’s First Tribal Casino Compacts

In 1987, the United States Supreme Court affirmed that tribal governments can legalize and regulate gambling as they see fit. The following year, Congress passed the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA), which imposed that tribal governments seeking to pursue Class 3 (or “Las Vegas style”) gambling, must first enter into a legally binding agreement, known as a compact, with the surrounding state government. Some states refused to negotiate. Others demanded sunset clauses, revenue sharing, and size limitations. In 1989, Minnesota and the 11 tribal governments that it surrounds signed the first tribal casino compacts in the United States, which impose none of the restrictions that have become common in other states’ compacts. What about Minnesota’s tribal-state relations led the state to become the first to sign compacts? What do the unique history and features of Minnesota tribal casino compacts teach us about tribal-state diplomacy? This presentation draws on archival and oral history research to provide two key lessons from America’s first tribal casino compacts: 1) states should be wary of underestimating tribal governments, and 2) arbitrary limitations on casino compacts can jeopardize both tribal and state development. Implication Statement: Oral history and archival research on America’s first tribal casino compacts reveal invaluable lessons for policymakers, researchers, and industry leaders

How Did Tribal Casinos Respond to the First Wave of the COVID-19 Pandemic?

Abstract: During the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in the Spring of 2020, state governors across the United States issued executive orders forcing bars and restaurants to close. Because tribal governments are sovereign and independent of state governments, state executive orders do not apply on tribal lands. Policy makers and pundits often critique tribal sovereignty as granting tribal governments free reign to make decisions that benefit Native communities at the expense of non-Natives. The first wave of the pandemic provided us with the opportunity to compare tribal and state government responses to determine which kind of government was more likely to make economic sacrifices to address a public health emergency. We collected data on 498 casinos closure and reopening dates and compared them to the responses of the 28 states that share boundaries with tribal land. We found that tribal governments, on average, acted faster to close casinos and waited significantly longer to reopen. We conclude that, contrary to the concerns of some critics, tribal governments made swifter and stronger economic sacrifices to prevent the spread of COVID-19. Implications of the material: Our research on tribal casino closures during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic demonstrates that tribal governments were more likely than state governments to prioritize public health over economic development