Publication
Court Finds Location of the Person Placing Bets Is Crucial for Determining State Regulation of Online Gambling: Southern Ute Indian Tribe et al. v. Polis et al.
A recent decision by the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado in Southern Ute Indian Tribe et al. v. Polis et al., provides clarification on the extent of state authority to regulate online sports betting activities in relation to tribal gaming operations. The court held that the State of Colorado may lawfully regulate sports betting activities when the bettor places the wager from a location outside of Native American lands. This decision seems to underscore the jurisdictional limits of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (“IGRA”) in the context of remote and online gambling activities.
In November 2019, Colorado enacted the Colorado Sports Betting Act, which authorized and regulated both retail and online sports betting within the state. Following this legislative development, the Southern Ute Indian Tribe entered the online sports betting market by launching its own platform, Sky Ute SportsBook, on June 2, 2020.1 Similarly, the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe attempted to create its own online sports betting platform.2
The state sent letters to the vendors of both the Southern Ute Indian Tribe and the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe (collectively, the “Tribes”), claiming the vendors’ activities of sports betting in Colorado were illegal.3 The Tribes brought a suit against the Governor of Colorado (Jared Polis) and the Director of the Colorado Division of Gaming (Christopher Schroder) (the “Defendants”). The Tribes argued that their gaming operations were governed exclusively by IGRA, and therefore, not subject to state regulation, even when accessed remotely by bettors located off tribal lands.4
The central legal issue before the court was whether IGRA applied to the Tribes’ online sports betting activities, and consequently, whether Colorado’s regulatory oversight of those activities constituted a violation of federal law. The court’s analysis focused on where the “gaming activity” occurs for the purposes of IGRA jurisdiction. The court determined that “gaming occurs where the bettor is located,” reasoning that if the bettor is situated outside of Indian lands—such as in Denver—the act of gambling does not take place “on Indian land” as required under IGRA.5 Accordingly, the court concluded that the state may regulate such activities without infringing upon the Tribes’ federally protected gaming rights.6
In reaching this conclusion, the court drew upon the United States Supreme Court’s reasoning in Michigan v. Bay Mills Indian Community, emphasizing that the term “gaming activity” under IGRA refers to “the activities actually involved in the playing of the game.”7 These include direct acts of participation—such as placing bets, dealing cards, or spinning a roulette wheel—rather than peripheral or technical processes associated with gaming operations.8 The court observed that, in the case of online sports betting, the critical act constituting “the playing of the game” is the bettor’s placement of the wager via an electronic device.9 Consequently, this activity occurs wherever the bettor is physically located, not where the wager processing server resides.10
The Tribes contended the relevant act for jurisdictional purposes should be the “acceptance of a wager” by the server, which was physically located on tribal land.11 The court disagreed, finding that IGRA’s reference to “gaming activity” encompasses the actions of the bettor rather than those of the gaming operator or “the house.”12 The decision emphasized that the state’s regulatory framework targets wagers placed off Indian lands and does not interfere with a Tribe’s ability to conduct gaming activities that occur on its own territory.13 As such, the Tribes remain free to offer online sports betting to participants who are physically located within their jurisdiction.14
The decision in Southern Ute Indian Tribe et al. v. Polis et al. appears to delineate a clear boundary between tribal and state authority in the evolving landscape of online gaming, setting an important precedent for future disputes involving the intersection of tribal sovereignty, federal law, and state regulation in the digital era.
Footnotes
-
Southern Ute Indian Tribe et al. v. Polis et al., No. 1:24-cv-01886-GPG-NRN at 4 (USDC Co. Oct. 23, 2025) (found at: https://turtletalk.blog/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/69-dct-order.pdf)
-
Id. at 5.
-
Id.
-
Id. at 5.
-
Id. at 7-8.
-
Id. at 8.
-
Michigan v. Bay Mills Indian Cmty., 572 U.S. 782, 795 (2014).
-
Southern Ute Indian Tribe at 7; (see Bay Mills, 572 U.S. at 792).
-
Southern Ute Indian Tribe at 7.
-
Id. at 8.
-
Id.
-
Id. at 7; (citing Navajo Nation v. Dalley, 896 F.3d 1196, 1207 (10th Cir. 2018)).
-
Id. at 8.
-
Id.
About Snell & Wilmer
Founded in 1938, Snell & Wilmer is a full-service business law firm with more than 500 attorneys practicing in 17 locations throughout the United States and in Mexico, including Los Angeles, Orange County, Palo Alto and San Diego, California; Phoenix and Tucson, Arizona; Denver, Colorado; Washington, D.C.; Boise, Idaho; Las Vegas and Reno-Tahoe, Nevada; Albuquerque, New Mexico; Portland, Oregon; Dallas, Texas; Salt Lake City, Utah; Seattle, Washington; and Los Cabos, Mexico. The firm represents clients ranging from large, publicly traded corporations to small businesses, individuals and entrepreneurs. For more information, visit swlaw.com.
