Whether the Tenth Circuit panel violated the current jurisprudence of this Court and the Congressional policy underlying IGRA by precluding the Nation from exercising its sovereign authority to permit a patron's tort claim against the Nation and its gaming facility to be brought in state court without express congressional permission

QUESTION PRESENTED In conjunction with this Court’s modern jurisprudence fostering tribal sovereignty, Congress enacted the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) intending that States and Native American Tribes “will sit down together in a negotiation on equal terms and at equal strength and come up with a method of regulating Indian gaming,” recognizing that “it is up to those entities to determine what provisions will be in the compacts.” (App. 115a). Under that statutory regime, the State of New Mexico and the Navajo Nation agreed it was important that visitors to the Navajo gaming facility “who suffer bodily injury or property damage proximately caused by the conduct of the Gaming Enterprise have an effective remedy for obtaining fair and just compensation.” (App. 90a). To accomplish this objective, the State and Nation jointly agreed that the Nation would waive sovereign immunity for torts caused by the conduct of the Gaming Enterprise. They also explicitly agreed that any such claim would be resolved under New Mexico law, and “may be brought in state district court, including claims arising on tribal land, unless it is finally determined by a state or federal court that IGRA does not permit the shifting of jurisdiction over visitors’ personal injury suits to state court.” (App. 90a) (emphasis added). The question presented is: Whether the Tenth Circuit panel violated the current jurisprudence of this Court and the Congressional policy underlying IGRA by precluding the Nation from exercising its sovereign authority to permit a patron’s tort claim against the Nation and its gaming facility to be brought in state court without express congressional permission. (i)