Bettor Racing, Inc. v. National Indian Gaming Commission, 812 F.3d 648

NIGC fined Bettor Racing $5 million for violations of the Indian Gaming Act related to contracting and ownership of tribal gaming operations.
Act requires NIGC to approve all management contracts; approval must be evidenced by a Commission document signed by the chairman.
Bettor Racing operated the Tribe’s pari-mutuel betting without NIGC-approved contract for about six months; two unapproved modifications followed, creating a check-swap scheme.
NIGC approved neither modification; Bettor Racing received more than 40% of net revenues under the scheme.
NIGC issued a Notice of Violation; the Tribe settled, Bettor Racing did not, and a Civil-Fine Assessment was issued for three violations.
District court granted summary judgment for NIGC; Bettor Racing appealed arguing lack of scienter, improper fine, and denial of hearing.
This court affirms the district court, reviewing de novo the agency’s action under the Administrative Procedure Act.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether scienter is required for violations under § 2713(a)(1).	Bettor Racing argues lack of knowledge negates liability.	NIGC contends no scienter is required to establish a violation; scienter affects only the fine amount.	No scienter required to prove violations; violations established.
Whether Bettor Racing violated the Act by operating without an approved contract and under unapproved modifications.	Tribe representations allegedly showing approval negate violations.	Approval was not obtained; modifications were unapproved and the contract was not compliant.	Undisputed facts show operating without an approved contract, under unapproved modifications, and holding proprietary interest.
Whether the $5 million fine is arbitrary, capricious, or Eighth Amendment excessive.	Fine is disproportionate given prior lack of violations.	Five-factor statutory framework and relevant policy support the amount; not excessive.	Fine supported by factors; not arbitrary or excessive.
Whether Bettor Racing’s due process rights were violated by summary judgment without a hearing.	Pending issues and credibility issues require a hearing.	Evidence was undisputed; summary judgment appropriate without a hearing.	Due process satisfied; summary judgment without a hearing appropriate.

Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29 (U.S. 1983) (arbitrary-and-capricious standard and need for rational connection)
Chevron, U.S.A. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (U.S. 1984) (agency deference to statutory interpretation)
TeamBank, N.A. v. McClure, 279 F.3d 614 (8th Cir. 2002) (Chevron step-two consideration)
Northern Wind, Inc. v. Daley, 200 F.3d 13 (1st Cir. 1999) (science of civil penalties where regulation silent on state of mind)
City of Duluth v. Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa, 830 F. Supp. 2d 712 (D. Minn. 2011) (factors in determining sole proprietary interest in gaming operation)
City of Duluth v. Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa, 702 F.3d 1147 (8th Cir. 2013) (reversed in part on other grounds; factors for proprietary interest)
United States v. Dodge Caravan Grand SE/Sport Van, 387 F.3d 758 (8th Cir. 2004) (Eighth Amendment proportionality in fines)
Friends of the Norbeck v. United States Forest Service, 661 F.3d 969 (8th Cir. 2011) (APA review standard and arbitrary/capricious review)
Bettor Racing v. National Indian Gaming Commission, Not provided (Not provided) (case analyzed for statutory interpretation and due process (background context))