Posted on: April 6, 2026, 07:08h.
Last updated on: April 6, 2026, 07:08h.
- Federal judge lets Wabanaki Nations defend Maine’s tribal gaming law
- Churchill Downs challenges tribal iGaming monopoly as unconstitutional and race-based
- Maine’s unique limits on tribal sovereignty complicate legal outlook
A federal judge has granted Maine’s Wabanaki Nations their motion to intervene in a legal case in which gaming operator Churchill Downs Inc. (CDI) accuses the state’s tribal online gaming monopoly of being illegal and “race based.”
The motion will allow the tribes to formally participate as defendants in the case and defend the law directly.
Kentucky-based CDI, which operates the Oxford Casino in Maine, sued the state in January, arguing the decision to hand online gaming exclusively to the tribes violates the Equal Protection Clauses of both the United States and Maine constitutions.
CDI’s argument is essentially that the law unfairly favors one group, the tribes, over others based on identity.
Casino Freeze-Out
At the beginning of the year, the state’s Democratic governor, Janet Mills, allowed a bill to become law that lets the Wabanaki partner with commercial operators to offer iGaming. The legislature has already granted the tribes a monopoly on online sports betting.
Both deals freeze out Maine’s two commercial land-based gaming operators, the Oxford Casino and the Hollywood Casino in Bangor – although both are permitted to offer in-person retail sports betting on their properties.
CDI argues in its suit that “promoting iGaming through race-based preferences deals a gut-wrenching blow to Maine businesses like Oxford Casino that have heavily invested in the state and its people.”
The operator claims tribal iGaming would cannibalize the land-based market, citing a recent study by The Innovation Group that found casino revenues decline by an average of 16% after iGaming is introduced.
Speaking to The Portland Press Herald, Lenny Powell, an attorney for the Native American Rights Fund representing the Wabanaki Nations, said CDI’s lawsuit represented “an unfortunate effort to undermine Tribal-state partnership.”
“It seeks to undermine the legal basis for constructive government-to-government policy collaboration, despite decades of data showing that tribal and nontribal communities alike are stronger when Tribal nations are empowered in their pursuit of self-determination,” he added.
Why are Tribes Treated Differently in Maine?
In most states, tribes are allowed to operate gaming under certain conditions through the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA). Maine, however, is an exception.
Under the Maine Indian Claims Settlement Act (MICSA), tribes were granted a more limited form of sovereignty that does not include the right to conduct gaming on tribal lands. As a result, tribal reservations are treated similarly to municipalities and are subject to state law.
The legislature’s decision to grant tribes exclusive rights to iGaming and online sports betting was, in part, an effort to address this imbalance.
Tribes in other states have largely withstood challenges to gaming monopolies thanks to sovereign immunity and the fact that tribal gaming compacts are recognized legal entitlements under IGRA.
In Maine, however, where tribal sovereignty is more limited, the legal foundation for such exclusivity is less certain — and it now faces a direct test in federal court.
Source link
