Since 1988, when Congress passed the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) into law, many Indian tribes have established gaming as a vital source of economic and political sovereignty. The process envisioned by IGRA, however, has allowed private actors to challenge tribal gaming operations by suing state and federal entities that negotiate the gaming operations with the tribes, rather than the tribes themselves. These third parties have succeeded in legal challenges enjoining tribal gaming without ever making the operating tribe a party to the suit.

Tribes, protected by the well-established doctrine of tribal sovereign immunity, frequently intervene in these suits under Rule 19, arguing that their inability to be joined necessitates dismissal of the case. An emerging disagreement among federal circuit courts underscores the procedural and practical difficulties that courts face in weighing these interests, particularly in assessing whether existing federal or state defendants can adequately represent absent tribal interests such that the case can proceed “in equity and good conscience.” This Note argues that consistent with the deference under Rule 19 case law accorded to other sovereigns, there should be a presumption of dismissal when tribes cannot be joined in discrete gaming challenges due to tribal sovereign immunity. In doing so, this Note examines Indian gaming challenges as a unique form of Administrative Procedure Act litigation and catalogs where federal, state, and tribal gaming interests diverge, underscoring why this divergence poses significant legal and practical threats to tribal sovereignty in a budding area of contemporary Indian law.

* J.D., Stanford Law School, 2025. I owe my deepest gratitude to Elizabeth Hidalgo Reese for her encouragement, wisdom, and patience through the many drafts of this Note. I would also like to sincerely thank Gregory Ablavsky, Shirin Sinnar, Diego A. Zambrano, Grant Christensen, and Matthew L.M. Fletcher, who were all so generous with their feedback and expertise. Finally, many thanks to Katya Perez, Peri Joy Long, and the thoughtful editors of the Stanford Law Review.