Court: Casino act not unconstitutional

PROVIDENCE – The R.I. Supreme Court has upheld a decision by the R.I. Superior Court that the 2011 Casino Act is not unconstitutional.

The act was challenged by the Narragansett Indian Tribe, which appealed a Superior Court decision in favor of the state of Rhode Island and UTGR Inc., doing business as Twin River, that said the act is “not facially unconstitutional.”

The tribe filed a complaint against the state in September 2011 seeking a declaration that the casino act was unconstitutional, citing the Rhode Island constitution, which reads that lotteries shall be prohibited in the state except those operated by the state. The tribe also claimed it was “unconstitutionally vague.” UTGR was permitted to intervene as a defendant.

A hearing was held in Washington County Superior Court and a hearing justice later wrote that although the tribe had standing, “it nonetheless had failed to meet its burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the Casino Act is facially unconstitutional.”

- Advertisement -

The tribe appealed the decision, and the state appealed the determination that the tribe had standing.

“The tribe emphasizes that the extensive regulatory power given to the state in the Casino Act is an indication that the act is unconstitutional. This assertion must be rejected. That the Casino Act grants the state regulatory power does not necessarily take away from whatever grant of operational power the Casino Act also provides. Indeed, the Rhode Island Constitution recognizes that regulation and operation are not mutually exclusive,” the opinion released by the Supreme Court said.

“Based on the strong presumption of constitutionality and the heavy burden in mounting a facial challenge, we cannot say that the Casino Act is facially unconstitutional,” the decision reads.

No posts to display