Appeals court dismisses Maverick Washington sports betting case

Legal texts and gavel
Image: Shutterstock

Maverick Gaming’s appeal of its challenge to Washington’s sports betting tribal compact ended much like the original case. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the case last week, offering generally the same opinion and rationale as the judge in the Western Washington District Court decision.

Maverick Gaming first filed the suit in 2022, arguing that the state’s compact with tribes giving them the exclusive right to offer sports betting in the state violated the 10th Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause.

Shoalwater Bay Casino, a tribal property in the state, intervened in the case, alleging that the case could not move forward because it would violate the tribe’s sovereignty to be enjoined in the case but the federal government could also not adequately represent the tribe’s interests.

Appeals court agrees tribe can’t be enjoined in case

The lower court agreed with Shoalwater that the tribe and the federal government’s interests were not aligned, however, the tribe could not be compelled to join the case. Accordingly, the case was dismissed.

In the appeal, the Ninth Circuit Court offered a similar interpretation of the situation.

“The district court correctly concluded that, because of the importance of tribal gaming compacts and the revenue that these compacts provide to Washington’s federally recognized tribes, as well as the long history of tribal gaming and its associated benefits for the tribes and their surrounding communities, Maverick’s suit implicates the Tribe’s legally protected economic and sovereign interests. Maverick does not contest this conclusion. In fact, Maverick concedes that the Tribe has a legitimate interest in the legality of its gaming compact and sports betting amendment,” the opinion read.

The ruling noted that, while the compact between the state and 11 tribes is active now, Washington has a proven history of conflict when it comes to tribal gaming, including an incident in the 1990s when the federal government temporarily seized tribal gaming equipment. With these “actual” conflicts, the court agreed with the lower court that there is simply no rationale to expect the federal government can adequately represent tribal interests.

Concurring opinion notes the appeals court aren’t aligned on APA

A panel of three judges, Kim McLane Wardlaw, William A. Fletcher, and Eric D. Miller heard the appeal, with Wardlaw authoring the opinion.

However, in a concurring opinion, Miller agreed that this was not the case to pursue the issue, but did note that differing opinions on how tribal compacts impacted the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) give him pause. The 10th Circuit and D.C. Court of Appeals have both concluded in other cases that a tribe is not a required party in similar cases.

“In an appropriate case, we should revisit the application of Rule 19 to APA actions and consider aligning our decisions with those of other courts of appeals,” Miller noted.

Maverick Gaming CEO Eric Persson has previously told the media he is willing to take this case all the way to the Supreme Court.

No posts to display