In Rice v. Rehner, 463 U.S. 713, 103 S. Ct. 3291, 77 L. Ed. 2d 961 (1983), the Supreme Court addressed that statute and the states' ability to regulate liquor on tribal land. The Court found that Indian tribes lacked "a tradition of self-government in the area of liquor regulation" and that, "by enacting 1161, Congress intended to delegate a portion of its authority to the tribes as well as to the States, so as to fill the void that would be created by the absence of the discriminatory federal prohibition of alcohol on Indian lands." Rice, 463 U.S. at 731, 733, 103 S. Ct. at 3302, 3303, 77 L. Ed. 2d at 978, 979. Thus, the Court held, the states could "regulate the use and distribution of alcoholic beverages in Indian country" by requiring a state liquor license. Rice, 463 U.S. at 715, 103 S. Ct. at 3293-94, 77 L. Ed. 2d at 967. As the Court stated in Rice, "the question presented by that case was whether the State of California may require a federally licensed Indian trader, who operates a general store on an Indian reservation, to obtain a state liquor license in order to sell liquor for off-premises consumption." 463 U.S. at 715, 103 S. Ct. at 3293, 77 L. Ed. 2d at 967.