Oklahoma tribe issues request for summary judgment in electronic gambling case
Wichita and Affiliated Tribes urge federal court to reject state’s bid for early win in escalating compact dispute
A protracted gaming-compact dispute between an Oklahoma tribe and the state is rapidly escalating, with the Wichita and Affiliated Tribes urging a federal court to reject the state’s motion for summary judgment in favor of their own on December 3.
The case, which pertains to the expansion of electronic gambling in Oklahoma, dates back to 2019.
That year, the Wichita, Cherokee, Choctaw, and Chickasaw Nations sued Governor Kevin Stitt for allegedly changing the law on multiple occasions to allow “additional non-tribal electronic or machine gambling” which the plaintiffs claim constituted a violation of the exclusivity clause of the established compact. Governor Stitt had a motion filed in October to dismiss the claims.
The state’s position is centered around the position that approximately 30 state-tribal gambling compacts set to expire in 2019 had to be renegotiated before taking effect again, a claim that was rejected in July by US District Judge Timothy D. DeGiusti, who ruled that the compacts had automatically renewed at the time in question.
The tribes took an even firmer stance in their reply brief following the state’s recent request for summary judgment, asserting that Oklahoma changed its laws after the effective date of the compact, which relieved them of their responsibility to pay exclusivity fees and further entitled the tribes to liquidated damages.
“In its motion, the state simply ignores the terms of the compact,” the tribes stated in the response filed in Oklahoma federal court. “It ignores the official opinion of its own Attorney General. It ignores the law. And it ignores the conclusions of this court. This results in ill-informed and incorrect conclusions throughout the state’s brief, warranting denial of its motion.”
The state’s position is that the matter represents a political question, as opposed to a legal one, in the absence of precedent for resolving the tribe’s “novel state-law claim”.
The state is additionally arguing that the tribe violated the compact’s dispute-resolution procedure, thereby invalidating its complaint. Governor Stitt has also claimed immunity from the suit.