Maverick Gaming has had its appeal of its lawsuit against Washington State’s sports betting exclusivity rejected.
The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has upheld the dismissal of a lawsuit, brought by casino operator Maverick Gaming, against the exclusivity of tribal sports betting in Washington State.
The case centred around Maverick Gaming’s challenge to the state’s tribal compacts, which grant Washington’s federally recognised tribes the exclusive authority to offer sports betting on tribal lands.
Maverick contended that these compacts violated the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA), the Equal Protection Clause, and the Tenth Amendment. However, the court upheld a lower court’s dismissal, citing the Shoalwater Bay Indian Tribe as a necessary party whose sovereign immunity barred their inclusion in the litigation.
Judge Wardlaw, writing for the court, emphasised that the Shoalwater Bay Tribe has a legally protected interest in the gaming compacts, which are critical to their economic development and sovereignty.
The court found that proceeding without the tribe would unfairly jeopardise these interests.
Furthermore, it concluded that the federal government, named as a defendant, could not adequately represent the tribe’s distinct economic and sovereign interests, even as it defended the compact approvals.
The Shoalwater Bay Tribe, like many of Washington’s 29 federally recognised tribes, relies on gaming revenue to sustain its economy and support its members.
The court noted that tribal casinos in Washington employed over 14,000 people in 2020 and generated more than $2bn in revenue in 2021.
A cornerstone of the court’s decision was the principle of tribal sovereign immunity.
The Shoalwater Bay Tribe successfully argued that it could not be joined in the lawsuit without its consent. Sovereign immunity, deeply rooted in federal law, protects tribes from lawsuits unless explicitly waived.
IGRA trumps commercial operators
The IGRA, passed in 1988, establishes a framework for tribal gaming to promote economic self-sufficiency and strong governance among federally recognised tribes. The law requires tribal-state compacts to regulate Class III gaming, such as sports betting.
The Ninth Circuit reiterated that these compacts are vital tools for tribes to exercise their sovereign rights while engaging in gaming operations.
Maverick Gaming had sought to expand sports betting to its non-tribal cardrooms, arguing that the tribal exclusivity provisions unfairly restricted competition.
However, Washington lawmakers had consistently rejected such proposals, opting instead to preserve the tribes’ exclusive rights, citing their decades-long experience in safely and effectively operating regulated gaming facilities.
The court further rejected Maverick Gaming’s argument that the federal government could adequately defend the tribal compacts.
It found that the government’s interests in ensuring compliance with federal law were not identical to the tribe’s interests in protecting its gaming revenues and sovereign rights.
This divergence underscored the necessity of the tribe’s direct involvement in the case — an impossibility given its immunity.
This ruling reinforces the strength of tribal sovereignty in the context of gaming regulation and may deter future challenges to similar compacts in other states. It also highlights the critical role of the IGRA in balancing tribal self-governance with federal oversight.
While the decision represents a setback for Maverick Gaming, it affirms the legal framework that allows tribes to maintain control over gaming operations on their lands.
For Washington tribes, the ruling safeguards a vital source of income and a cornerstone of economic independence.