Ninth Circuit Upholds Dismissal of Maverick Gaming LLC’s Lawsuit Over Tribal Sports Betting Compacts

By Heidi McNeil Staudenmaier and Kelsey Haake

In a significant ruling, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the dismissal of Maverick Gaming LLC’s lawsuit in Maverick Gaming LLC v. United States¹, which sought to challenge Washington State’s tribal-state compacts that allowed sports betting on tribal lands. The lawsuit raised claims under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA), the Equal Protection Clause, and the Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The court ruled that the Shoalwater Bay Indian Tribe was a required party to the lawsuit, and its absence due to sovereign immunity meant the case could not proceed.

Maverick Gaming LLC (Maverick), a casino operator, had acquired several cardrooms in Washington State in 2019 and lobbied for legislation permitting sports betting in these facilities. Despite these efforts, the state legislature passed a law allowing only tribes to conduct sports betting on their lands through amendments to their gaming compacts under IGRA. Maverick sued, claiming that the tribal-state compacts and their amendments violated federal law. However, the lawsuit failed to include any tribes as defendants, including the Shoalwater Bay Indian Tribe (the Tribe), which was directly affected by the compact amendments.

In the court’s ruling, penned by Judge Kim McLane Wardlaw, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision to dismiss the case. The core of the decision was the finding that the Tribe was a “required party” under the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19. The court indicated, “because the Tribe has a legally protected interest in the lawsuit that may be impaired or impeded in the Tribe’s absence,” it would be a required party under Rule 19(a)(1)(B)(i).² More specifically, the court reasoned that due to the Tribe’s protected interest in the lawsuit, proceeding without the Tribe would potentially impact its sovereign rights and the economic benefits from the gaming compact.

The Tribe’s sovereign immunity precludes it from being sued without consent, making joining it as a party to the litigation impossible. The court also determined that the lawsuit could not continue “in equity and good conscience”³ without the Tribe’s involvement. The court noted that invalidating the compact would significantly affect the Tribe’s economic interests, which federal or state defendants could not adequately represent.

This ruling highlights the court’s respect for tribal sovereignty. The Ninth Circuit reinforced that sovereign immunity cannot be waived through mere participation in legal proceedings for limited purposes, and the court will often dismiss cases when a tribe cannot be joined due to its immunity.

The court further clarified that, while the federal government “share[s] an interest in the ultimate outcome of this case,” it cannot adequately represent the Tribe’s specific interests in its gaming operations. The court emphasized that while the federal government may have a regulatory interest in ensuring that the compacts comply with federal law, the Tribe has a distinct and more direct interest in ensuring its continued ability to operate gaming facilities. Specifically, the court affirmed that “[the federal government] does not share an interest in the outcome of the continued approval of the sports-betting compact amendments — the continued operation of sports-betting at tribal casinos.”⁴ As such, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision and dismissed Maverick’s complaint.

In his concurrence, Judge Erin D. Miller agreed with the majority’s decision but raised concerns about the majority’s interpretation of Rule 19 in cases involving the Administrative Procedure Act. He argued that the precedent set by the court may not fully account for the unique nature of cases involving administrative actions where a tribe’s interests might not always align with those of the federal government.

The Maverick Gaming LLC v. United States decision underscores the challenges non-tribal entities face when attempting to challenge tribal-state compacts or other sovereign-related issues without including tribes in the litigation. The ruling solidifies the legal principle that tribes cannot be forced into lawsuits due to their sovereign immunity. This case serves as a reminder of the strength of tribal sovereignty, particularly concerning gaming compacts negotiated under IGRA.