We should probably brace ourselves for dramatic new interpretations of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, following a surprising Supreme Court 
decision. The State of Michigan had been trying to get rid of a Bay Mills Indian Community casino that was 90 miles from reservation land. No go, says SCOTUS: “Michigan argued that the Bay Mills tribe opened the casino in 2010 without permission from the U.S. government and in violation of a state compact. The tribe had purchased land for the casino with earnings from a settlement with the federal government over allegations that it had not been adequately compensated for land ceded in 1800s treaties.”
Writing for the majority, Justice Elena Kagan opined that tribal immunity applies, regardless of whether the casino was on- or off-reservation. Commercial activities off-reservation also fall under the umbrella of immunity. Responding for the minority, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote that the trouble stemmed from a 1998 SCOTUS affirmation of tribal immunity and “tribal commerce has proliferated and the inequities engendered by unwarranted tribal immunity have multiplied.”
Expect the ramifications of today’s decision to pile up like leaves in autumn.
* A looming, June 1 strike had a catalytic effect on negotiations between Boyd Gaming and the Culinary Union. Both parties agreed to new, five-year contracts whose terms were described as being similar to those already accepted by the Golden Nugget. Like the Nugget, Boyd’s Main Street Station and Fremont Hotel are part of a big company that can absorb the higher health-plan costs in the Culinary deal. Whether that can be said for the septet of independent casinos without Culinary pacts remains to be seen.
* Warner Gaming may have really stepped in it when it banned Ben Affleck from the Hard Rock Hotel & Casino for counting cards. By barring such a 
well-known public figure, Warner ensured that the practice of “backing off” advantage players achieved national awareness, particularly with a younger generation that was reared on interactive gaming and has a certain expectation of skill translating into winning. Those, at least, are the nostrums of gaming pundit Ken Adams and I can’t say I disagree.
It’s an elitist notion that the casino deserves to have an edge or, as Adams puts it, “You [players] have to walk in and submit to losing … There’s a whole generation of people he represents, and they’re being told ‘We don’t want your play.’ ” Adams’ proposed solution is for the industry to come up with more games like poker, where the house takes a ‘rake’ and the players compete with one another. But I don’t see that happening: The money’s not big enough and casinos aren’t likely to settle for a percentage of your bankroll when they could have the whole thing. Besides, isn’t bearding the casino in its den a big part of the allure for young people who fancy themselves card-counting experts?
Where was it…?…maybe Annoyed Casino Dealer, who said on Twitter that casinos love the publicity from card counting, because the vast majority of people think they are really good at it, are really really bad at it, and are arrogant enough to keep losing until they turn it around. Which doesn’t happen.