The Urogate States Department of Justice has recommended that the Supreme Court reject Maverick Gaming’s appeal regarding Washington state’s tribal-exclusive sports betting law. The DOJ also acknowledged that lower courts made errors in interpreting the law.

In a filing from August, the DOJ indicated that the Ninth Circuit’s dismissal of Maverick’s case stemmed from a “misinterpretation of Rule 19” of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Despite this, it characterized Maverick’s appeal as “a notably flawed means,” referencing the company’s Chapter 11 bankruptcy and prior acknowledgments of tribal interests.

The legal matter, Maverick Gaming v. United States (No. 24-1161), focuses on whether Native American tribes can sufficiently prevent challenges to federally sanctioned gaming compact agreements by citing sovereign immunity. In 2020, Washington lawmakers restricted sports betting to tribes, leading to the amendment and approval of 20 tribal compacts within a year. Maverick, which operates 19 cardrooms across the state, filed a lawsuit against the Department of the Interior in 2022, alleging the arrangement to be an “incorrect application of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act.”

Federal courts ruled in favor of the Shoalwater Bay Tribe, which participated in the case, concluding that tribes were “a necessary and indispensable party” as per Rule 19, thereby rendering the lawsuit unfeasible without them.

While the DOJ concurred that the Ninth Circuit’s reading was incorrect, it contended that under the Administrative Procedure Act, “the APA does not permit relief against any entity other than the agency.” The DOJ cautioned that allowing tribes to obstruct such lawsuits “detracts from Congress’s determination that an aggrieved party from final agency action ought to have judicial recourse.”

The department also emphasized that “no other appellate court has supported” the Ninth Circuit’s stance, referencing rulings made in the D.C. and Tenth Circuits. However, it highlighted that Maverick had acknowledged earlier that the Tribe possesses a ‘legitimate interest in the legality of its gaming compact and sports betting amendment.’

This conflict mirrors similar disputes in California, where tribal entities claim that cardrooms are violating their exclusive rights to house-banked games. A judge recently dismissed tribal claims against these cardrooms, while state Attorney General Rob Bonta has put forward new regulations that could reportedly cost cardroom operators around $464 million annually.

Even if the justices decline to review the case, the DOJ recognized that the Ninth Circuit’s doctrine could re-emerge. The question of whether tribes can invoke sovereign immunity to thwart challenges against gaming compacts may resurface before the Supreme Court in subsequent cases.