Justia Gaming Law Opinion Summaries

The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's 42 U.S.C. 1983 action, alleging California Business & Professions Code 19858 and 19858.5 as facially unconstitutional under the Dormant Commerce Clause. The district court dismissed the action as time-barred.The panel reversed and held that, although it has not applied a state statute of limitations to a facial challenge under the Dormant Commerce Clause, it saw no reason to treat such a claim differently from facial constitutional claims under the First, Fifth, or Fourteenth Amendments. Therefore, consistent with its case law, the panel held that plaintiffs' claims were subject to the forum state's statute of limitations. In this case, the relevant statute of limitations was two years. The panel held that, assuming for the sake of analysis that sections 19858 and 19858.5 violate the Dormant Commerce Clause, plaintiffs have demonstrated a continuing violation. Therefore, plaintiffs' injuries fell within the relevant statutory period and the district court erred by concluding otherwise. View "Flynt v. Shimazu" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's order granting summary judgment to the state in an action brought by Indian tribes under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA). California permits certain forms of class III gaming under an effective tribal-state gaming compact. At issue was the termination provision in a 1999 compact.The panel held that the plain language of the IGRA permits tribes and states to negotiate the duration of a compact governing the conduct of a tribe's class III gaming activities. Therefore, the panel held that the termination provision in the compact at issue was not void under the IGRA. View "Chemehuevi Indian Tribe v. Newsom" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment for the government defendants, in an action brought by the Community challenging Interior's determination that it is ineligible for gaming for purposes of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA). The panel held that the agency's determination was correct, because the IGRA clearly and unambiguously requires federal recognition by the Secretary of the Department of the Interior before a tribe may qualify to participate in Indian gaming. The panel also held that the Frank's Landing Act did not authorize the Community to engage in class II gaming. View "Frank's Landing Indian Community v. National Indian Gaming Commission" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to California and the United States in an action seeking injunctive relief prohibiting the Iipay Nation of Santa Ysabel from continuing to operate Desert Rose Casino.The panel held that the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) protects gaming activity conducted on Indian lands. However, a patron's act of placing a bet or wager on a game of Desert Rose Bingo (DRB) while located in California constitutes gaming activity that is not located on Indian lands. Therefore, it violates the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act and was not protected by the IGRA. The panel further held that, even if Iipay was correct that all of the "gaming activity" associated with DRB occurred on Indian lands, the patrons' act of placing bets or wagers over the internet while located in a jurisdiction where those bets or wagers was illegal makes Iipay's decision to accept financial payments associated with those bets or wagers a violation of the UIGEA. View "California v. Iipay Nation of Santa Ysabel" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit reversed the dismissal of a purported class action against Churchill Downs alleging violations of Washington's Recovery of Money Lost (RMLGA) at Gambling Act and Consumer Protection Act, and unjust enrichment. The panel held that Big Fish Casino constituted illegal gambling under Washington law because its virtual chips were a "thing of value." The panel also held that plaintiff could recover the value of the virtual chips lost under the RMLGA. In this case, plaintiff alleged that she lost over $1,000 worth of virtual chips while playing Big Fish Casino, and she can recover the value of these lost chips from Churchill Downs, as proprietor of Big Fish Casino. Therefore, the panel remanded for further proceedings. View "Kater v. Churchill Downs Inc." on Justia Law