Here are the new materials in Oxford Casino Hotel v. Champion (D. Me.):

Here are the new materials in Oxford Casino Hotel v. Champion (D. Me.):

On April 1, 2026, the four Wabanaki Nations ā the Houlton Band of Maliseet Indians, the Miākmaq Nation, the Passamaquoddy Tribe, and the Penobscot Nation ā 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 Nationsā motion. The Nationsā intervention ensures their voices are represented in a lawsuit challenging Maineās 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 Nationsā motion to intervene, the court has allowed the NationsĀ 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 ā 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: āThis law is crucial to advancing the Houlton Bandās 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.ā
Chief McCormack, Mi’kmaq Nation: “Rural Maine and our Nations are interconnected. When Tribal economies grow, local businesses, workers, and towns grow too. The Miākmaq 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 Maineās 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. Maineās 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: āThe Native American Rights Fund is proud to jointly represent the Wabanaki Nations in efforts to defend āAn Act to Create Economic Opportunity for the Wabanaki Nations Through Internet Gaming.ā 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.ā
Here is the brief in Kalshiex LLC v. Flaherty:
Lower court opinion:

Here is the opinion in State of California v. Iipay Nation Of Santa Ysabel:
Briefs here.
The Jurimetrics Journal at ASU Law has published “A New Formula for Tribal Internet Gaming” by Racheal White Hawk. [pdf]
The abstract:
Tribal gaming is an industry that generates more than $27 billion a year. It comprises forty percent of all gaming in the United States, and has provided more than 628,000 jobs for Native and local communities. While tribal brick-and-mortar casinos contribute numerous economic, cultural, and social benefits to Native communities, Internet gaming profits are a potential boon. Internet gaming is well positioned for rapid growth because tens of millions of Americans use computers, cell phones, and tablets for shopping, games, and entertainment. Furthermore, with the advent of increasingly accurate geolocation technology, filtering, and blocking systems, the age and location of gamblers can be monitored, thus facilitating legal Internet gaming within state borders. Moreover, the potential for tax and licensing revenue from Internet gaming is immense, and states may enter into revenue-sharing agreements with tribes while offering exclusivity for tribal operators. For instance, in California, tribes contributed $467 million to state revenue in 2012 from brick and mortar casinos. States such as Delaware and New Jersey have legalized intrastate Internet gaming to reap tax revenue. California, however, has not yet legalized intrastate Internet gaming. Rather than wait for states to legalize intrastate Internet gaming, some tribes are launching their own online poker and bingo rooms to accept bets from players not located on Indian lands, asserting that doing so is legal under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA). However, some states disagree that it is legal under IGRA. To prevent impending expensive and time-consuming litigation and to support tribal economic development, Congress should reform the current regulatory patchwork of federal Internet gaming legislation by legalizing interstate Internet gaming, allowing states to opt out of the federal interstate Internet gaming scheme, and adding a new category specifically for Internet gaming to IGRA.
Click here.
Here are the materials in State of California v. Iipay Nation of Santa Ysabel (S.D. Cal.):
15-1 Iipay Nation Motion to Dismiss
24 DCT Order Denying Motion to Dismiss
TRO stage materials are here.
You must be logged in to post a comment.