Justia Gaming Law Opinion Summaries

Plaintiffs held licenses from the Puerto Rico Treasury Department (Treasury) authorizing them to own and operate “adult entertainment machines” (AEMs). Special Treasury task-force agents later seized AEMs belonging to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs sued Defendants, the parties supposedly responsible for damages, in a federal district court under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that the inspections and confiscations of the AEMs violated their constitutional rights. Plaintiffs also asserted supplemental local-law claims mirroring their federal-law claims. The court granted Defendants summary judgment on the federal law claims and relinquished jurisdiction over the local-law claims. The First Circuit (1) vacated the summary judgment on the search-and-seizure and local-law claims, holding that the case must be remanded so the district court can address timing and scope matters in the qualified-immunity context; and (2) affirmed in all other respects. View "Rivera-Corraliza v. Puig-Morales" on Justia Law

The federally recognized Indian Tribe is a successor to an 1864 Treaty between the United States and the Chippewa Indians, including an agreement by the United States to set aside property in Isabella County, Michigan as a reservation. The Treaty did not mention application of federal regulations to members of the Tribe or to the Tribe itself. The property reserved for the “exclusive use, ownership, and occupancy” of the Tribe became the Isabella Reservation. The Tribe has over 3,000 members, and is governed by an elected council. In 1993, under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, the Tribe and the state entered a compact, approved by the United States, allowing the Tribe to conduct gaming on the Isabella reservation. The Tribe opened the Casino; enacted a gaming code with licensing criteria for employees; and created a regulatory body. The council hires all Casino management-level employees, approves contracts, and decides how to distribute revenue. Of the Casino’s 3,000 employees, 7% are Tribe members, as are 30% of management-level employees. The Casino generates $250 million in gross annual revenues and attracts 20,000 customers per year, many of whom are not Tribe members. The Tribe discharged Lewis for violating an employee handbook policy that prohibited solicitation by employees, including solicitation related to union activities, on Casino property. The NLRB found that the policy violated the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. 151. The Sixth Circuit affirmed and enforced the order, finding that the NLRB has jurisdiction over the Casino’s employment practices. View "Soaring Eagle Casino & Resort v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd." on Justia Law

At issue in this case were devices that resemble traditional casino-style slot machines in certain respects and offer users the chance to win sweepstakes prizes. The five Defendants in this ran businesses using devices that employed modern technology to run sweepstakes computer games. The Kern County District Attorney’s Office filed separate civil actions against each of the Defendants, alleging that Defendants had violated antigambling provisions of the Penal Code in operating their businesses and seeking injunctive and other relief. The superior court granted preliminary injunctions prohibiting each defendant from operating any business that includes any type of “sweepstakes,” “slot machines,” or “lottery” feature. The Court of Appeal affirmed, concluding that the sweepstakes operations were illegal slot machines. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Defendants’ devices were unlawful slot machines under Cal. Penal Code 330b. View "People ex rel. Green v. Grewal" on Justia Law

The Fond du Luth Casino in Duluth opened in 1986 as a joint venture between the city and the Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa and is operated by the Band. The 1988 Indian Gaming Regulatory Act led to restructuring of agreements between the Band and the city under a 1994 consent decree, under which the Band paid the city $75 million 1994-2009, 19 percent of gross revenues. The Band stopped making payments in 2009, believing that they violated IGRA as interpreted by the National Indian Gaming Commission. In 2011, the Gaming Commission issued a Notice of Violation, determining that the payments violated IGRA requirements that tribes have the sole proprietary interest in casinos and are their primary beneficiaries. The Commission ordered the Band not to resume payments. The Band sought relief under FRCP 60(b)(6) from payments in 2009-2011. The district court denied relief. The Eighth Circuit remanded and again reversed and remanded, finding that the district court failed to consider all of the factors identified in its 2013 order. The court must give proper weight to the congressional intent that tribes be the primary beneficiaries of Indian gaming and the fact that the city was on notice in 2009 of Gaming Commission policies. View "Duluth v. Fond Du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa" on Justia Law

Wisconsin’s Governor has entered into gaming compacts with all of the state’s tribes (Wis. Stat. 14.035). The HoChunk Nation adopted an ordinance, authorizing Class I and Class II gaming on its lands. The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA), 25 U.S.C. 2703(6), (7), (8), defines Class I gaming as social games and traditional Indian gaming, regulated exclusively by tribes; Class II gaming includes bingo and certain nonbanked card games (players compete against one another rather than against the house) that are authorized by state laws. Class III gaming is a residual category, regulated under tribal-state compacts. A 2008 agreement between the state and the Nation does not restrict Class II gaming. Since 2010, the Nation has offered nonbanked electronic poker at Ho-Chunk Madison. Wisconsin sought an injunction to stop the poker, which, if classified as Class III would violate the Nation’s compact with the state. The district court ruled that the poker was a Class III game. The Seventh Circuit reversed. States may not prohibit a tribe from offering gaming that is roughly equivalent to what the state allows for its residents. A state must criminalize a gambling activity in order to prohibit the tribe from engaging in it. Wisconsin decriminalized nonbanked poker in 1999. IGRA does not permit interference with Class II poker on tribal land. View "Wisconsin v. Ho-Chunk Nation" on Justia Law

In 1991, the Tulalip Tribes of Washington and the State of Washington signed a tribal-state gaming compact (the Tulalip Compact), which has since been amended numerous times. The Spokane Tribe did not participate in the collective negotiation process that led to the Tulalip Compact. In 2007, a compact between the Spokane Tribe and the State (the Spokane Compact) became effective. In 2010, Tulalip requested negotiations with the State to amend its compact to enable Tulalip to acquire additional licenses to video player terminals licenses to video player terminals for Class III gaming under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. When negotiations broke down, Tulalip initiated suit, asserting that the “most-favored tribe” clause in the Tulalip Compact entitled it to the amendment because the mechanism was available to the Spokane Tribe but unavailable to Tulalip. The district court granted summary judgment to the State and denied Tulalip’s cross-motion for summary judgment. A panel of the Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding that the most-favored tribe clause did not require the State to adopt Tulalip’s proposed amendment because the amendment did not mirror the restrictions set forth the Spokane compact. View "Tulalip Tribes of Washington v. State of Washington" on Justia Law

Based on investigations by law enforcement officials, a grand jury returned an indictment against several individuals and companies alleging that they had used an Internet gambling system to conceal illegal gambling by presenting it as an Internet sweepstakes. The prosecuting attorney then mailed letters to Plaintiff and other proprietors of Internet sweepstakes cafes threatening criminal prosecution if they did not immediately cease to run the sweepstakes. Plaintiff filed this action seeking to prohibit the prosecuting attorney from enforcing gambling laws against it with respect to Internet sweepstakes. Plaintiff sought to compel discovery of information related to the ongoing criminal investigation. The trial court ordered the prosecuting attorney to produce the information. The prosecuting attorney filed an interlocutory appeal. The court of appeals balanced the competing interests of Plaintiff and the prosecuting attorney and affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding that certain information being sought was not protected by the law enforcement investigatory privilege. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the law enforcement investigatory privilege is not absolute; and (2) the balancing test the Court adopted in Henneman v. Toledo for weighing the interests of law enforcement in keeping the information confidential against the needs of a civil litigant who requests the information in discovery remains valid. View "J & C Marketing, LLC v. McGinty" on Justia Law

The Narragansett Indian Tribe (Tribe) filed a complaint against the State seeking a declaration that the Casino Act must be invalidated because it is unconstitutionally vague or because it otherwise violates the non-delegation doctrine enunciated in R.I. Const. art. VI, 1 and 2. UTGR, Inc. subsequently intervened as a defendant. The superior court found in favor of Defendants, concluding that the Casino Act was not facially unconstitutional. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that, based on the strong presumption of constitutionality and the heavy burden of mounting a facial challenge, it could not be said that the Casino Act is facially unconstitutional. View "Narragansett Indian Tribe v. State" on Justia Law

Sterling Suffolk Racecourse, LLC (SSR) applied for a license to place a casino in certain areas of Massachusetts. Caesars Entertainment Corporation and three Massachusetts affiliates (collectively, Caesars) were the proposed operators of the casino. The Massachusetts Gaming Commission issued an investigatory report concluding that Caesars was unsuitable as an operator, which caused Caesars to accede to SSR’s request that it withdraw from their contractual relationship. Caesars brought this action under 28 U.S.C. 1983 against certain Commission officials in their individual and official capacities and also brought a state law claim subject to supplemental jurisdiction. The district court dismissed the federal claims under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) as beyond the scope of federal affordable relief and dismissed the state law claim as standing alone. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) because Caesars alleged no cognizable protected property interest, its Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment due process claims were correctly dismissed for failure to state a claim; and (2) Caesars’ class-of-one Fourteenth Amendment equal protection claim could not be recognized against a state actor given the breadth of discretion provided by the Massachusetts casino licensing statute. View "Caesars Mass. Dev. Co., LLC v. Crosby" on Justia Law

At issue in this case was the validity of a rule promulgated by the New York State Racing and Wagering Board (Respondent) mandating out-of-competition race horse drug testing. Petitioners commenced this hybrid article 78/declaratory judgment proceeding, alleging that the rule, referred to as the Out of Competition Testing Rule (OCTR) was not authorized by Respondent’s enabling legislation. Supreme Court granted the petition, finding that Respondent had acted in excess of its legislatively delegated power. The Appellate Division modified by effectively denying the petition, concluding that the OCTR was, for the most part, valid and that the rule’s promulgation lay within Respondent’s legislatively conferred authority to regulate and supervise race meets at which pari-mutuel wagering is permitted. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that Respondent possesses the power to promulgate rules mandating warrantless, out-of-competition equine testing for proscribed doping agents. View "Ford v. N.Y. State Racing & Wagering Bd." on Justia Law