. Pair Of Lawsuits Threaten To Derail Launch Of Arizona Sports Betting

Pair Of Lawsuits Threaten To Derail Launch Of Arizona Sports Betting

Written By John Holden on August 31, 2021Last Updated on September 2, 2021
Lawsuits Threaten Arizona Sports Betting Launch

The Yavapai-Prescott Indian Tribe disaster reading was moved to September 2 by Maricopa County Superior Court Judge James Smith. Smith scheduled a reading for September 6 after learning what he might anticipate from both the plaintiffs and the accused. The judge told everyone involved that he anticipates rendering a determination that evening and added that an appeal follows.

A pair of lawsuits were filed on August 26, 2021, just before the Maricopa County Superior Court closed for company, in an effort to halt the expansion of gambling in Arizona. The circumstances were brought after the condition granted tribes ten certificates and professional sports teams eight.

TP Racing filed the first case after being denied a sports betting technician license. The Yavapai-Prescott Indian Tribe, which did not receive one of the 10 certificates granted to nations, filed its second petition just 33 moments later.

On September 3, an incident reading was held in each case. The state & rsquo’s sports betting rollout, which is scheduled for next week, could be halted by a decision in favor of either of these plaintiffs.

The TP Racing issue is the first AZ sports betting case.

TP Racing kicked it all off. The owner of the Turf Paradise horse-racing track in Phoenixfiled suit alleging that the denial of their sports wagering operator license was “arbitrary and capricious, not supported by substantial evidence and/or an abuse of discretion.”

The Arizona Department of Gaming‘s classification of & ldquo, a professional sports franchise, is the main focus of the TP Racing allegations. According to the group, the National Thoroughbred Racing Association is the owner of a personal professional horseracing company. & rdquo,

Arizona lawmakers’ dangerous writing

The terminology of the Arizona Statute andrsquo, which states:

& ldquo, owner of an Arizona professional sports team or franchise, promotor of a national association for stock car auto racing national touring race held in this state, [ iv ] the owner & rsquo; s / operator & mo r / s / promoter & m – d ee & hellip; & rdquo,

Application for a sports betting license from TP Racing & rsquo was denied

According to TP Racing & rsquo’s complaint, the company applied for a sports betting license. The ADG requested more information on August 10 and TP Racing provided it over the course of the following three times.

But, on August 16, the ADG rejected the program. The office noted in a text dated the following morning that TP Racing did not meet the criteria for obtaining trophies or to be considered professional sports.

TP Racing appealed the ruling on August 20; it is still pending.

What is the goal of TP Racing?

The position of TP Racing under Arizona law will be decided justly in a declarative and injunctive comfort case.

Additionally, the organization has asked a court to halt legal sports betting until TP Racing & rsquo’s appeal is heard.

The Yavapai-Prescott Indian is the defendant in the second AZ sports betting case. Tribe grievance

The complaint filed by the Yavapai-Prescott Indian Tribe (YPIT) notes that this action stems from the legislature’s passage of HB 2772, Arizona’s bill that brought expanded gaming to the state. The tribe alleges that the law abrogates the gaming exclusivity enjoyed by tribes throughout Arizona.

Contravention of the claim made in the Voter Protection Act

The first argument put forth by the YPIT & rsquo is that HB 2772 violates an Arizona law that forbids legislators from deviating from voter referendums unless the legislation is passed to further the referendum’s objectives.

Second, the kindred contends that Proposition 202, which gave state tribes the sole authority to host gambling events on ethnic lands, is broken by the gaming expansion law.

Contravention of the Special Laws Prohibition Against the Constitution state

The state constitution forbids the special treatment given to Arizona & rsquo, professional teams, according to the tribe’s second claim.

The tribe’s emphasis on Arizona case law demonstrates how courts have taken note of how legislation favoring a particularly small group can be particularly problematic under the state law.

The states of the Unlawful Emergency Measure and Equal Protection

The YPIT’s fourth claim is that HB 2772 shouldn’t be considered an emergency measure. The tribe also claims that the law violates Arizona & rsquo’s equal protection clause, which states:

No law may be passed that grants privileges or immunities that, under the same conditions, shall not evenly belong to all citizens or corporations to any resident, class of citizens, or corporation other than provincial. & rdquo,

Like the argument advanced by West Flagler Associates regarding sports betting in Florida, the plaintiffs argue that the analysis should be conducted under a strict scrutiny lens — the most exacting level of review for the government to justify an action.

The YPIT contends that the tribe was excluded from discussions to change the state & rsquo’s gaming agreements. The tribe’s exclusivity granted under the originally agreed-upon compact would be eliminated by the alleged isolation of the tribe.

The YPIT wants what, exactly?

The Yavapai-Prescott requests an order and declares the unconstitutionality of HB 2772. To prevent the introduction of sports betting, the kindred will initially request a temporary restraining order.

How should we interpret these assertions?

Given their hasty schedule, some people initially seemed dubious of these promises, especially after the ADG announced the distribution of sports gambling licenses. If approved, who & rsquo plans to file a lawsuit?

However, a closer look reveals that both of these claims contain significant allegations.

The Yavapai-Prescott lawsuit casts serious doubt on the 2003 small amendment procedure, which was carried out earlier this year. The community may also be able to contest the compact’s legality in federal prosecutor. But that’s a topic for another time.

However, the act andrsquo’s drafting is the subject of some fairly legitimate questions raised by the TP Racing complaint. Turf Paradise may not always be thought of as a professional sports venue or brand, but TP Racing successfully argues that Arizona has done so in the past.

Turf Paradise debuted on January 1st, 1956. The facility is referred to as & ldquo, one of Arizona & rsquo’s first sports franchises, by the ADG on its website, according to TP Racing. & rdquo,

a picture by Dreamstime
John Holden Avatar
authored by
John Holden

View all posts by John Holden