Published on: April 6, 2026, 07:08h.
Updated on: April 6, 2026, 07:08h.
- Federal Judge Permits Wabanaki Nations to Advocate for Tribal Gaming Legislation in Maine
- Churchill Downs Challenges Tribal iGaming Exclusive Status, Claims It’s Unconstitutional and Based on Race
- Maine’s Unique Restrictions on Tribal Sovereignty Complicate Legal Perspective
A federal judge has approved the motion for intervention from Maine’s Wabanaki Nations in a lawsuit initiated by gaming operator Churchill Downs Inc. (CDI), which contends that the state’s tribal online gaming monopoly is unlawful and racially discriminatory.
This intervention allows the tribes to actively participate as defendants and advocate for their legislation.
CDI, headquartered in Kentucky and operating the Oxford Casino, filed the lawsuit in January, claiming that granting exclusive online gaming rights to the tribes breaches the Equal Protection Clauses of both the U.S. and Maine constitutions.
Essentially, CDI argues that the law is biased in favor of the tribes over other entities based on identity.
Exclusion of Casinos
At the start of the year, Maine’s Democratic governor, Janet Mills, permitted a bill that enables the Wabanaki to collaborate with commercial operators for iGaming offerings. The legislature has also conferred a monopoly on online sports betting exclusively to the tribes.
These arrangements exclude Maine’s two commercial land-based gaming establishments, the Oxford Casino and Hollywood Casino in Bangor, though both are allowed to operate in-person retail sports betting.
In its lawsuit, CDI contends that “advancing iGaming through race-based preferences severely undermines Maine businesses like Oxford Casino that have made substantial investments in the state and its residents.”
CDI claims that tribal iGaming would adversely impact the land-based market, citing a study from The Innovation Group, which found that casino revenues tend to decrease by an average of 16% following the introduction of iGaming.
In conversation with The Portland Press Herald, Lenny Powell, an attorney for the Native American Rights Fund representing the Wabanaki Nations, remarked that CDI’s lawsuit is “an unfortunate attempt to weaken the Tribal-state partnership.”
“It undermines the legal framework for constructive government-to-government policy cooperation, despite ample evidence from decades indicating that both tribal and nontribal communities thrive when Tribal nations are empowered in their quest for self-determination,” he added.
Why Is There a Distinction in Treatment for Tribes in Maine?
Typically, tribes are permitted to operate gaming establishments under specific conditions established by the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA). However, Maine stands as an exception.
According to the Maine Indian Claims Settlement Act (MICSA), tribes have been granted a curbed form of sovereignty that excludes the right to engage in gaming on their lands. Consequently, tribal reservations are governed similarly to municipalities and are subjected to state legislation.
The legislature’s choice to bestow exclusive rights to iGaming and online sports betting upon the tribes was partly an effort to correct this imbalance.
In other states, tribes have generally defended against challenges to gaming monopolies due to sovereign immunity and the acknowledgement of tribal gaming compacts as legitimate legal rights under IGRA.
However, in Maine, where tribal sovereignty is more confined, the legal grounds for such exclusivity remain uncertain — and are now being directly tested in federal court.