Publication

Supreme Court Review Sought for Legality of Washington Tribal Gaming Compacts

Jun 04, 2025

The United States Supreme Court will consider whether to review the legality of the Washington tribal gaming compacts as a result of a petition for writ of certiorari (cert) filed in the lawsuit, Maverick Gaming LLC v. United States.1 The petition, filed in May, seeks review of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision last year to uphold the federal district court’s dismissal of Maverick’s lawsuit.2

The question presented for cert is “[w]hether Rule 19 [of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure] requires dismissal of [Administrative Procedures Act (APA)] suits challenging federal agency action whenever a non-party who benefited from that action asserts sovereign immunity.” The lawsuit was initially brought to challenge the legality of Washington tribal-state compacts under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA), the Equal Protection Clause, and the Tenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.

The tribal state compact between Washington State and the various tribes allows for certain types of gaming and sports betting, classified as Class III gaming, on tribal land, which the state does not otherwise permit. Only tribes are permitted to conduct Class III gaming on their lands in the State of Washington. Maverick brought suit against certain Federal Defendants in the Washington District Court concerning the legality of these compacts. There were no tribes included as parties in the suit.

The Shoalwater Bay Indian Tribe (Tribe) sought intervention in the suit, claiming they were a “necessary and indispensable party” because the outcome of the case directly impacted them. The federal district court agreed the Tribe was a required party under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 19(a)(1)(B), but determined they could not be joined due to the Tribe’s sovereign immunity status. As such, the federal district court dismissed the case, and on appeal, the Ninth Circuit upheld the lower court’s dismissal of the case. The Ninth Circuit agreed the Tribe was a required party because of its protected interest in the outcome and that the case could not continue “in equity and good conscience” without the Tribe.3

The lower court had found the Tribe was a “required party” under Rule 19 “because the Tribe has a legally protected interest in the lawsuit that may be impaired or impeded in the Tribe’s absence.”4 The Ninth Circuit agreed, noting the suit “implicates the Tribe’s legally protected economic and sovereign interests.”5 Maverick’s suit did not “incidentally affect the gaming tribes [. . . it was] aimed at the tribes and their gaming.”6

In determining whether to grant review of the Ninth Circuit decision, the Supreme Court will weigh various factors, including existing decisions among the various circuit courts. The Ninth Circuit decision appears to be at odds with the Tenth, Eighth, Seventh, and District of Columbia Circuits. These circuits have held that a sovereign non-party may not be able to compel the dismissal of an APA action when the Federal Government is ready to defend the agency action.

Footnotes

  1. Maverick Gaming LLC v. USA, No. 23-35136, 2024 WL 5100829 (9th Cir. Dec. 13, 2024).

  2. This legal alert updates prior reporting that the Supreme Court had made a decision on whether to grant cert. The Court has not yet made a formal decision and may not do so for several months.

  3. Id. at *4.

  4. Id. at *20.

  5. Id. at *21.

  6. Id. at *42.

Back to top

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.

©2025 Snell & Wilmer L.L.P. All rights reserved. The purpose of this publication is to provide readers with information on current topics of general interest and nothing herein shall be construed to create, offer, or memorialize the existence of an attorney-client relationship. The content should not be considered legal advice or opinion, because it may not apply to the specific facts of a particular matter. As guidance in areas is constantly changing and evolving, you should consider checking for updated guidance, or consult with legal counsel, before making any decisions.
Media Contact

Olivia Nguyen-Quang

Associate Director of Communications
media@swlaw.com 714.427.7490