This educational guide is based on the linked primary sources. It is not a Court publication, is not affiliated with the Court, and is not legal advice.
In brief
Overview
According to Petitioner, the Chickasaw and Choctaw Nations asked the Court to hold that Congress has afforded tribes the same exemption from Federal wagering taxes enjoyed by State governmental wagering operations.
Background and question before the Court
Chief Justice Rehnquist asked: “Where do we find this exact text that you're talking about in the brief or in --”.
According to Justice, a Justice questioned whether the Court presumes exemptions from taxation when statutory language is ambiguous.
A Justice asked why the presumption that ambiguities in treaties are read in favor of Indians should be carried over into a statute.
What each side argues
Chickasaw Nation (Petitioner)
According to Petitioner, the Chickasaw Nation argues that Congress has given tribes the same exemption from federal wagering taxes as states.
According to Mr. Luthey, the Tribe relies on the precedent that statutes concerning Indians that are ambiguous are to be construed in favor of the Indians (Montana v. Blackfeet Tribe).
According to Mr. Luthey, the Tribe points to IGRA §2719(d)(2), which states that the provisions of the subsection (including the statute at issue) shall apply notwithstanding any other provision of law, supporting the exemption claim.
United States (Respondent)
According to Mr. DuMont, the United States argues that the statute is not ambiguous and therefore does not provide an exemption for tribal wagering.
According to Mr. DuMont, the United States contends that the canon of construction is not a true tie‑breaker in this case and should not be used to infer an exemption.
What happened at oral argument
What the Court decided
Why it matters
Terms to know
No glossary terms are available for this guide.
Primary sources
Read the source materials on the official site or open the immutable repository copy used for this guide.
- d7d75970815c4d3d2cbf-r1-a3901e090d596907.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 19, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.