Justia Gaming Law Opinion Summaries

POM of Kansas, LLC, owns and distributes Dragon's Ascent, an arcade game where players shoot dragons for prizes redeemable for cash. Concerned about the game's legality under Kansas law, POM sought approval from state agencies, which declined to provide a formal opinion. POM proceeded with the game's launch and filed a lawsuit seeking a declaratory judgment that the Kansas Expanded Lottery Act does not apply to Dragon's Ascent, that the game complies with Kansas' criminal gambling statutes, and that those statutes are unconstitutionally vague.The Shawnee District Court dismissed the claims against the Kansas Racing and Gaming Commission and the Douglas County District Attorney, ruling that no real controversy existed as neither had investigated the game nor threatened prosecution. The court retained the Kansas Attorney General in the case due to the constitutional challenges raised. The district court later dismissed POM's claims for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and ruled against the constitutional challenges on the merits.The Kansas Supreme Court reviewed the case and focused on the issue of standing. The court held that POM lacked standing to seek a declaratory judgment about the Kansas Expanded Lottery Act because no defendant suggested the Act applied to Dragon's Ascent. The court also found that POM lacked standing to seek a declaration that Dragon's Ascent is lawful under Kansas criminal gambling statutes, as there was no credible threat of prosecution or seizure of the devices. Finally, the court concluded that POM lacked standing to raise a constitutional vagueness challenge to the gambling statutes, as there was no credible threat of prosecution.The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed the district court's dismissal of POM's claims regarding the Expanded Lottery Act and the legality of Dragon's Ascent, vacated the ruling on the constitutional vagueness challenge, and remanded the matter for dismissal. View "POM of Kansas v. Kobach" on Justia Law

Maverick Gaming LLC, a casino gaming company, filed a lawsuit challenging the State of Washington's tribal-state compacts that allow sports betting on tribal land. Maverick argued that these compacts violate the Indian Regulatory Gaming Act (IGRA), the Equal Protection Clause, and the Tenth Amendment. Maverick sought to invalidate the gaming compacts and amendments that permit sports betting on tribal lands, which would allow them to offer similar gaming activities at their cardrooms.The United States District Court for the Western District of Washington dismissed Maverick's lawsuit. The court found that the Shoalwater Bay Indian Tribe, which intervened for the limited purpose of filing a motion to dismiss, was a required party under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19(a). The court determined that the Tribe had a legally protected interest in the lawsuit that could be impaired or impeded in its absence. The court also concluded that the Tribe could not be feasibly joined in the litigation due to its sovereign immunity. Consequently, the court ruled that the litigation could not proceed in equity and good conscience without the Tribe and dismissed the case.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal. The Ninth Circuit agreed that the Tribe was a required party with a substantial interest in the legality of its gaming compact and sports betting amendment. The court also found that the federal government could not adequately represent the Tribe's interests, as their interests diverged in meaningful ways. The court held that the Tribe's sovereign immunity prevented its joinder, and the litigation could not proceed without the Tribe. The court rejected Maverick's argument that the public rights exception should apply, as the suit threatened the Tribe's legal entitlements and sovereignty. View "Maverick Gaming LLC V. United States" on Justia Law

Steve Wynn, a prominent figure in Nevada gaming and politics, filed a defamation lawsuit against The Associated Press (AP) and its reporter, Regina Garcia Cano. The lawsuit stemmed from an article published by AP that reported on allegations of sexual assault against Wynn from the 1970s. The article was based on complaints obtained from the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department. Wynn claimed the allegations were false and that AP published the article with actual malice.The Eighth Judicial District Court in Clark County granted AP's special motion to dismiss under Nevada's anti-SLAPP statutes, which are designed to protect free speech and petitioning activities from meritless lawsuits. The district court found that the article was a good faith communication related to an issue of public concern and that Wynn failed to show a probability of prevailing on his defamation claim. Wynn appealed this decision.The Supreme Court of Nevada reviewed the case de novo. The court affirmed the district court's decision, holding that AP met its burden under the first prong of the anti-SLAPP analysis by showing the article was a good faith communication on a matter of public interest. The court also clarified that under the second prong, a public figure plaintiff must provide sufficient evidence for a jury to reasonably infer, by clear and convincing evidence, that the publication was made with actual malice. Wynn failed to meet this burden, as his evidence did not demonstrate that AP published the article with knowledge of its falsity or with reckless disregard for the truth. Consequently, the Supreme Court of Nevada affirmed the district court's order granting the special motion to dismiss. View "Wynn v. The Associated Press" on Justia Law

Sutter’s Place, Inc., which operates Bay 101 Casino, challenged the City of San Jose's annual cardroom regulation fee, arguing it was an unconstitutional tax imposed without voter approval and violated due process. The fee was equally divided between Bay 101 and Casino M8trix, the only two cardrooms in the city. The plaintiff contended that the fee included costs outside the constitutional exception for regulatory charges and that the equal allocation was unfair.The Santa Clara County Superior Court held a bench trial and found the fee valid, covering reasonable regulatory costs and fairly allocated between the cardrooms. The court determined the fee was for regulatory functions, the amount was necessary to cover costs, and the equal allocation was reasonable given the equal number of tables and benefits to both cardrooms. The court also excluded certain expert testimony from the plaintiff and denied a separate due process trial.The California Court of Appeal, Sixth Appellate District, reviewed the case. It upheld the trial court's finding that the equal allocation of the fee was reasonable but reversed the judgment on other grounds. The appellate court found the trial court erred by not specifically determining whether all costs included in the fee fell within the constitutional exception for regulatory charges. The case was remanded for the trial court to identify and exclude any non-permissible costs from the fee and to conduct further proceedings on the due process claim if necessary. The appellate court also reversed the award of costs to the city and directed the trial court to reassess costs after applying the correct legal standards. View "Sutter's Place, Inc. v. City of San Jose" on Justia Law

In this case, two companies and an individual, all involved in Florida's gaming industry, petitioned against the Governor of Florida and others, challenging a gaming compact between the State and the Seminole Tribe. The petitioners argued that a sports betting provision in the compact violated the Florida Constitution, which limits the expansion of casino gambling to the citizens' initiative process. They claimed that the Governor and Legislature exceeded their constitutional authority by allowing the compact to be enacted. The petitioners requested a declaration that the law implementing the compact was unconstitutional and sought an injunction to stop the Seminole Tribe from continuing to operate mobile sports betting.However, the Supreme Court of Florida rejected this petition on the grounds that a writ of quo warranto, which the petitioners used to challenge the compact, was not an appropriate means to question the substantive constitutionality of an enacted law. The court underscored that quo warranto is a common law remedy used to test the right of a person to hold an office or exercise some right derived from the state, not to challenge the constitutionality of a law. Therefore, the petitioners' claim was beyond the relief that quo warranto provides.The petitioners' reliance on previous cases, where the writ of quo warranto was used to question the Governor's authority to bind the state to a compact without ratification by the Legislature, was also rejected. The court pointed out that these cases were fundamentally different as they did not challenge the substance of the agreement enacted by the Governor and ratified by the Legislature.In conclusion, the Supreme Court of Florida denied the petition, stating that the relief sought by the petitioners was beyond what quo warranto provides and declined to extend the scope of the writ to test the substantive constitutionality of a statute. View "West Flagler Associates, Ltd. v. DeSantis" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court holding that the Arkansas Racing Commission's (ARC) decision to award the Pope County casino license to Cherokee Nation Businesses, LLC (CNB) and Legends Resort and Casino, LLC (Legends) was a "legal nullity, void and of no effect," holding that the circuit court did not err.In this third iteration of appeals involving the issuance of the license Gulfside Casino Partnership (Gulfside) argued that the ARC's action was ultra vires because it was issued in violation of the clear language of amendment 100 to the Arkansas Constitution. The circuit court granted summary judgment for Gulfside, concluding that the casino license issued by the ARC jointly to CNB and Legends was an ultra vires action. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not err in its decision. View "Cherokee Nation Businesses, LLC v. Gulfside Casino Partnership" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court held that Senate Bill (S.B.) 126, which amended Ky. Rev. Stat. 452.005, was unconstitutional and declined to extend comity.Plaintiffs challenged the constitutionality of House Bill 594, which banned certain types of electronic gaming machines. In response, the Attorney General, who was a named defendant, invoked the newly-enacted provision of S.B. 126, seeking to transfer the case to another circuit court by way of a lottery selection. Plaintiffs responded by challenging the constitutionality of S.B. 126's mandatory transfer procedure. The circuit court temporarily stayed its ruling on Defendants' motion to transfer, and Plaintiffs sought a supervisory writ from the Supreme Court to prohibit transfer of the action and seeking a declaration that S.B. 126 was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court granted relief, holding (1) S.B. 126 violates the separation of powers doctrine, contrary to sections 27, 28, 109, 110 and 116 of the Kentucky Constitution; and (2) S.B. 126 is not extended comity. View "ARKK Properties, LLC v. Cameron" on Justia Law

The Seminole Tribe of Florida (“Tribe”) and the State of Florida entered into a compact under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (“IGRA”). That gaming compact (“Compact”) purported to permit the Tribe to offer online sports betting throughout the state. The Compact became effective when the Secretary of the Interior failed to either approve or disapprove it within 45 days of receiving it from the Tribe and Florida. The Plaintiffs, in this case, brick-and-mortar casinos in Florida, object to the Secretary’s decision to allow the Compact to go into effect because, in their view, it violated IGRA. They also believe that the Compact violates the Wire Act, the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act, and the Fifth Amendment and that the Secretary was required to disapprove the Compact for those reasons as well. The district court denied the Tribe’s motion and granted summary judgment for Plaintiffs.   The DC Circuit reversed and remanded with instructions to enter judgment for the Secretary. The court explained that IGRA does not prohibit a gaming compact—which is, at bottom, an agreement between a tribe and a state—from discussing other topics, including those governing activities “outside Indian lands.” Accordingly, the court explained that the district court erred by reading into the Compact a legal effect it does not (and cannot) have, namely, independently authorizing betting by patrons located outside of the Tribe’s lands. The court held only that the district erred by reading into the Compact a legal effect it does not (and cannot) have, namely, independently authorizing betting by patrons located outside of the Tribe’s lands. View "West Flagler Associates, Ltd. v. Debra Haaland" on Justia Law

In consolidated appeals, Brighton Ventures 2 LLC and the St. John Life Center ("the Life Center") appealed a circuit court judgment order forfeiting $446,897.19 that was found to have been used as bets or stakes as part of an illegal gambling operation. The City of Brighton ("the City") had an ordinance permitting the establishment of charitable bingo operations within its city limits. In early 2019, an application for a charity-bingo business license was submitted to the City on behalf of Super Highway Bingo ("the casino"); the Life Center was listed as the named charity. In February 2019, the City issued the requested business license, and, in March 2019, the casino officially opened. According to the record, Brighton Ventures was responsible for the day- to-day operations of the casino and, in exchange for its management services, received 85% of the casino's profits. The Life Center, in return, received 15% of the casino's profits. Around the time the casino opened, the Alabama Attorney General's Office began an investigation into "electronic bingo" activity occurring there. "Electronic bingo is illegal in Alabama." An undercover investigator from the Attorney General's office was able to play electronic bingo games at the casino. The State executed multiple search warrants at the casino during which it seized, among other things, over 200 "electronic bingo" machines and large sums of cash. Relevant to these appeals, the State then initiated separate actions, petitioning the circuit court for an in rem civil forfeiture of the $446,897.19. Brighton Ventures and the Life Center denied that the funds seized were "used as bets or stakes in gambling activity" as described in § 13A-12-30(c) and argued that the State had unlawfully seized the funds. They also asserted counterclaims in which they alleged, among other things, that forfeiture of the funds constitutes an "excessive fine" in violation of the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Alabama Supreme Court found no error in the circuit court's judgment and affirmed the order ordering the forfeiture. View "Brighton Ventures 2 LLC v. Alabama" on Justia Law

The Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the appellate division modifying and affirming the judgment of Supreme Court declaring that article 14 of the Racing, Pari-Mutuel Wagering and breeding Law violates the constitutional prohibition on gambling to the extent it authorizes interactive fantasy sport (IFS) contests, holding that Plaintiffs did not meet their burden to demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that article 14 is unconstitutional.In 2016, the legislature enacted article 14, which authorizes and regulates IFS contests, upon determining that IFS contests are not unconstitutional gambling activities because they are skill-based competitions in which contestants have some influence over the outcome of the fantasy contests. At issue was whether the legislature properly determined that IFS contests authorized in article 14 are not unconstitutional. The Court of Appeals held that the legislature's conclusion that IFS contests are not "gambling" is consistent with precedent delineating the parameters of that term. View "White v. Cuomo" on Justia Law