The U.S. Department of Justice has officially urged the Supreme Court to dismiss Maverick Gaming’s appeal concerning Washington state’s tribal-exclusive sports betting framework. Despite acknowledging lower courts’ misapplication of legal rules, the DOJ argues Maverick’s petition is an "imperfect vehicle" for review, citing the company’s bankruptcy and prior concessions.
Key Takeaways
- The DOJ supports Washington’s tribal-only sports betting model.
- The Supreme Court is asked to reject Maverick Gaming’s challenge.
- Lower courts’ legal interpretations were acknowledged as flawed.
- Tribal sovereign immunity is central to the dispute.
The Legal Battle Over Sports Betting
The case, Maverick Gaming v. United States, hinges on whether Native American tribes can leverage sovereign immunity to prevent challenges to their federally approved gaming compacts. Washington state enacted legislation in 2020 that restricted sports betting exclusively to tribes, leading to the amendment and approval of 20 tribal compacts within a year. Maverick Gaming, which operates 19 cardrooms in the state, filed a lawsuit in 2022, asserting that this arrangement constituted an "erroneous application of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act."
Federal courts initially sided with the Shoalwater Bay Tribe, which intervened in the case. These courts ruled that the tribes were "a necessary and indispensable party" under Rule 19 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, effectively halting the lawsuit without their inclusion.
DOJ’s Stance and Reasoning
While the Department of Justice conceded that the Ninth Circuit’s interpretation of Rule 19 was indeed flawed, it maintained that the Administrative Procedure Act "does not authorize relief against any party other than the agency." The department further stated that allowing tribes to obstruct such cases "undermines Congress’s judgment that a person aggrieved by final agency action should have access to judicial review."
The DOJ also pointed out that "no other court of appeals has endorsed" the Ninth Circuit’s approach, referencing decisions from the D.C. and Tenth Circuits. However, it emphasized Maverick’s prior acknowledgment that the Tribe possesses a "legitimate interest in the legality of its gaming compact and sports betting amendment."
Broader Implications and Future Outlook
This dispute mirrors similar legal contests occurring in California, where tribes contend that cardrooms are encroaching on their exclusive rights to house-banked games. A recent judicial decision dismissed tribal claims against cardrooms, and proposed restrictions by the state Attorney General could significantly impact cardroom operators financially.
Even if the Supreme Court denies review of Maverick’s petition, the DOJ recognizes that the Ninth Circuit’s legal doctrine might reappear in future cases. The fundamental question of whether tribes can utilize sovereign immunity to shield gaming compacts from legal challenges could potentially return to the Supreme Court.
