High Court's Seminole decision raises questions.

• Position: Gambling licenses

This spring's U.S. Supreme Court decision in Seminole Tribe of Florida vs. Florida came out strongly in favor of states' rights, but left a number of questions about Indian tribal gaming up in the air.

The questions are relevant in only a small number of situations when a state refuses to negotiate with a tribal government on gambling activities. Up to now, most negotiations between states and tribes have resulted in gaming compacts - 24 states and 126 tribes have 141 such agreements.

In Seminole, the Supreme Court said Congress cannot resolve stalled negotiations between states and tribal governments over gambling by allowing tribes to sue states in federal courts. What the Supreme Court failed to do is indicate how states and tribes should proceed in future disputes.

The biggest concern is about the role of the secretary of interior. Federal law allows tribes to seek help from the secretary when state-tribal negotiations fail. Will the secretary of interior now try to assume authority to unilaterally authorize Class III (high stakes) gaming when states and tribes can't agree? If such a process were to be adopted, states could be bypassed entirely.

Some tribal spokesmen say the Seminole decision paves the way for more involvement by the Interior Department. "This loss by the tribes could be a victory, depending on the secretary of the interior and his politics," says Frank Ducheneaux, a Washington lawyer who represents native governments. Others see this as a plus for states. Congressman Robert Torricelli of New Jersey says an interior secretary would never approve Indian gambling if state officials were in opposition. "It would be an infringement on the state and clearly untenable."

Some say the Seminole decision will end the spread...