In California v. Cabazon Band of Mission Indians, 480 U.S. 202 (1987), the Court initially noted that no federal statute governed state involvement in Indian tribal gambling activities at that time. It then balanced the interests of the tribe, the federal government and the State of California before determining that the state's interest in preventing anticipated crime did not justify state regulation of tribal bingo enterprises in light of the compelling federal and tribal interests supporting them. The Supreme Court held that a state which regulates rather than prohibits gambling must permit Indian tribes to conduct gambling on their lands (see, Cabazon, 480 U.S. at 209). The Court further held that Indian tribes would be forbidden from conducting gambling if a particular state prohibits such gambling altogether (id.) To deal with this regulatory/prohibitory distinction, the Cabazon court stated: "The shorthand test is whether the conduct at issue violates the State's public policy." (Cabazon, 480 U.S. at 209). The primary purpose of the federal Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988 (IGRA) is "to provide a statutory basis for the operation of gaming by Indian tribes as a means of promoting tribal economic development, self-sufficiency, and strong tribal governments" (25 USC 2702 1). In Cabazon, the Supreme Court upheld a similar argument. However, Justice Stevens had reservations akin to my own, i.e., that the argument makes little sense. In a dissenting opinion, written by Justice Stevens and joined by Justices O'Connor and Scalia, Justice Stevens wrote that: "Today the Court seems prepared to acknowledge that an Indian tribe's commercial transactions with non-Indians may violate 'the State's public policy.' . . . The Court reasons, however, that the operation of high-stakes bingo games does not run afoul of California's public policy because the State permits some forms of gambling and, specifically, some forms of bingo. I find this approach to 'public policy' curious, to say the least. The State's policy concerning gambling is to authorize certain specific gambling activities that comply with carefully defined regulation and that provide revenues either for the State itself or for certain charitable purposes, and to prohibit all unregulated commercial lotteries that are operated for private profit. To argue that the tribal bingo games comply with the public policy of California because the State permits some other gambling is tantamount to arguing that driving over 60 miles an hour is consistent with public policy because the State allows driving at speeds of up to 55 miles an hour" (Cabazon, 480 U.S. at 224-225). The Supreme Court agreed with the tribe and held that California could not enforce its bingo laws on the tribe's reservation. Id. at 211-12. The Cabazon decision was issued six days after the bill that would become the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) was introduced; nevertheless, the Cabazon case persuaded many tribes that legislation on the subject was inevitable and that reaching a compromise with the states might yield legislation that was more solicitous of tribal interests. See S. Rep. No. 100-446, at 4.