1. General-fund revenue sharing from tribes in California, distinguished from the RSTF and SDF, is in trouble. The government views the latter funds as gaming-related, but general-fund revenue sharing as not gaming-related and not furthering purposes of IGRA. 2. The case hangs on whether the state offered a meaningful concession to the tribe by offering "exclusivity," and the court of appeals concluded that because California, by constitutional amendment, already gives a monopoly to Indian gaming, it cannot legitimately offer "exclusivity." The government argues that that is a fact-bound determination of the lower courts and is inappropriate for the Supreme Court to review. 3. But, the government dodges the bullet as to whether denying certiorari here (and letting the court of appeals' decision stand) will undercut other states' revenue sharing arrangements. The government suggests California is to be contrasted with the other states that have negotiated for general-fund revenue sharing: California is the only state that, by constitutional amendment, already has given an exclusive monopoly of casino gambling to Indian tribes; the other states were able to offer exclusivity of casino gambling as a "meaningful concession" and California is not able to do so. 4. The government does not appear to address Judge Bybee's point in dissent that the state may have made meaningful concessions in the offer to extend the compact terms and authorize additional machines. As that point was in the dissent, perhaps the government did not think it worthy of response, or it simply relies on the notion the lower courts' findings are part of a fact-bound determination that does not warrant the Supreme Court's review.