Wabanaki Nations Intervene to Defend Maine’s Internet Gaming Law

On April 1, 2026, the four Wabanaki Nations — the Houlton Band of Maliseet Indians, the Mi’kmaq Nation, the Passamaquoddy Tribe, and the Penobscot Nation — represented by the Native American Rights Fund and co-counsel filed an unopposed motion to intervene in Oxford Casino Hotel, et al. v. Champion in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maine. On April 2, 2026, the district court granted the Nations’ motion. The Nations’ intervention ensures their voices are represented in a lawsuit challenging Maine’s new internet gaming law, An Act to Create Economic Opportunity for the Wabanaki Nations Through Internet Gaming, a statute that is important to unique Tribal economic and sovereign interests.

Previous post on this matter is here.

The law, enacted earlier this year, establishes a regulatory framework allowing the Wabanaki Nations to seek licenses to operate internet gaming in Maine. The statute is designed to support Tribal self-determination and create economic opportunities that strengthen the Wabanaki governments and their ability to provide for their communities. The Nations are the direct beneficiaries of the law and have significant sovereign, economic, and constitutional interests at stake in the litigation.

The lawsuit, brought by Oxford Casino Hotel and others, seeks to invalidate the law on constitutional grounds. By granting the Wabanaki Nations’ motion to intervene, the court has allowed the Nations  to participate as party defendants to defend the law and protect their unique sovereign right as governments to pursue economic development in order to fund essential government programs, services and infrastructure.

Leaders of the Wabanaki Nations emphasized the importance of intervening to safeguard economic sovereignty and shared prosperity across Maine.

Chief Francis, Penobscot Nation: “Our intervention in Oxford v. Champion is about the future — for our people and for all of rural Maine. This law gives the Penobscot Nation a fair chance to build jobs, fund essential services, and partner across communities to heal long-standing economic disparities, while recognizing our unique politic status as a Tribal Nation. We look forward to the opportunity to defend this law and our right to economic self-determination.”

Chief Sabattis, Houlton Band of Maliseet: “This law is crucial to advancing the Houlton Band’s efforts to develop independent, long-term revenue sources that are not dependent on federal funding and will enable us to support and expand governmental services for Maliseet families and other community members. It is a result of collaboration between the Wabanaki Nations and state government under our unique jurisdictional relationship to create opportunities that will enable the Nations to share in the economic benefits of gaming.”

Chief McCormack, Mi’kmaq Nation: “Rural Maine and our Nations are interconnected. When Tribal economies grow, local businesses, workers, and towns grow too. The Mi’kmaq Nation is proud to stand in court with the other Wabanaki Nations to defend a law that makes that shared prosperity possible.”

Chief Bassett, Passamaquoddy Tribe (Pleasant Point): “The Wabanaki Nations face steeper barriers to prosperity than other Tribes around the country, and we have been historically blocked out of Maine’s casino gaming industry as our peers across Indian country rebuilt their economies and the economies around them using those same economic tools we were deprived of. Defending this law is defending our right to pursue self-determination. We are fighting for a brighter economic future for our future generations.”

Chief Nicholas, Passamaquoddy Tribe (Indian Township): “The Passamaquoddy Tribe has been steadfast in its support of economic sovereignty as its number one priority the past two years in the Maine legislature. We are ready to stand in court to defend a law we were proud to fight for over the past years in the state house. Maine’s new internet gaming law is intended to promote a better economic future for Wabanaki communities and for rural Maine. By protecting this law, we protect our future.”

Native American Rights Fund Staff Attorney Lenny Powell: “The Native American Rights Fund is proud to jointly represent the Wabanaki Nations in efforts to defend ‘An Act to Create Economic Opportunity for the Wabanaki Nations Through Internet Gaming.’ This attack represents an unfortunate effort to undermine Tribal-state partnerships. It seeks to undermine the legal basis for constructive government-to-government policy collaboration, despite decades of data showing that Tribal and non-Tribal communities alike are stronger when Tribal nations are empowered in their pursuit of self-determination.”

Nonmember Gaming Company Sues Iowa Tribe over Tribal Court Jurisdiction [international online gaming]

Here are the materials so far in Monster Technology Group LLC v. Eller (W.D. Okla.):

Evenly Split Minnesota SCT Affirms State Authorization of Racinos

Here are available materials for In the Matter of the Minnesota Racing Commission’s Approval of Running Aces Casino Hotel & Racetrack’s Request to Amend its Plan of Operation:

Minnesota Federal Court Dismisses Suit Against Tribal Gaming Executives

Here are the materials in North Metro Harness Initiative LLC v. Beattie (D. Minn.):

1 Complaint

29 Prairie Island Motion to Dismiss

39 Mille Lacs Motion to Dismiss

50 State Amicus Brief

62 Plaintiffs Opposition

68 Tribes Reply

85 DCT Order

89 Motion for Rule 59(e) Relief

93 Tribes Opposition

100 DCT Order 59(e) Motion

UNLV Gaming Law Journal Special Section on Indian Law

Here:

PDF

Editor’s Note
Valerie Andalibi-Alvarenga

PDF

Introduction
Danielle Finn

PDF

Beyond Bingo: How Class II Bingo-Based “Slot Machines” Are Reshaping Tribal-State Dynamics
Kelsey Henderson

PDF

Economic Development for Native Nevada: How Indian Gaming Can Further Tribal Self-Determination
Makai Zuniga

PDF

Keynote Speech from the 2025 Indian Nations Gaming & Governance Program Symposium
Patrice Kunesh

Sixth Circuit Amicus Brief from Tribal and Private Gaming Operators in Michigan re: Pari-Mutual Blah Blah Blah

Here is the brief in Churchill Downs Technology Initiatives Co. v. Michigan Gaming Control Board:

Tribal Amicus Brief in Third Circuit Appeal re: Company Using Event Contracts (Derivatives) to Engage in Sports Gambling

Here is the brief in Kalshiex LLC v. Flaherty:

Lower court opinion:

Two California Tribes Sue Non-Indian Gaming Companies

Here is the complaint in Rincon Band of Luiseno Indians v. Parkwest Bicycle Casino LLC (Cal. Super.):

Illinois SCT Dismisses Forest County Potawatomi Challenge to State Gaming Licensure Procedures as Moot Caused Challenged Licenses Have Already Been Issued, “Too Bad, So Sad” Theory Prevails

Here is the opinion in Waukegan Potawatomi Casino LLC v. Illinois Gaming Board:

Bill Wood

Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria Sue Interior over Trust Land Acquisition for Koi Nation of Northern California

Here is the complaint in Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria v. Haaland (N.D. Cal.):