City of Revere v. Massachusetts Gaming Commission
476 Mass. 591
| Mass. | 2017Background
- In 2011 the Legislature created the Massachusetts Gaming Commission and a two‑phase licensing process for up to one Category 1 (full casino) license in Region A; the Commission awarded the Region A license to Wynn in September 2014 and issued a written determination in November 2014.
- Mohegan Sun (unsuccessful applicant), the City of Revere (host community for Mohegan), IBEW Local 103 (union), and several individuals sued the Commission alleging multiple defects in the licensing process and related violations (administrative review, declaratory relief, and open‑meeting claims).
- The Superior Court dismissed most claims: it held G. L. c. 23K, § 17(g) barred review under G. L. c. 30A, § 14, allowed Mohegan Sun to proceed only with a certiorari claim, and dismissed the city/union for lack of standing; it also dismissed the individuals’ open‑meeting claim as speculative.
- The SJC accepted direct appellate review and (1) affirmed that § 17(g) bars ordinary G. L. c. 30A review of licensing decisions, (2) held certiorari remains available as an extraordinary remedy, (3) ruled the city and union lack standing to pursue certiorari/declaratory claims, and (4) reversed dismissal of part of the open‑meeting claim by individuals.
- The SJC set out the prerequisites and a deferential standard for certiorari review of Commission licensing decisions and remanded for further proceedings consistent with that framework.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether G. L. c. 23K, § 17(g) precludes judicial review under G. L. c. 30A, § 14 | Mohegan: § 17(g) bars review of denials only, not of grants (so Mohegan can challenge award to Wynn) | Commission: § 17(g) shows clear legislative intent to withhold judicial review of licensing decisions | Held: § 17(g) expressly precludes ordinary G. L. c. 30A, § 14 review of Commission licensing decisions (affirmed) |
| Whether certiorari remains available despite § 17(g) | Mohegan: certiorari is an extraordinary, ancient writ and is not barred by § 17(g) | Commission: statutory bar immunizes Commission from review entirely | Held: Certiorari survives § 17(g); statute did not unmistakably preclude the writ (Mohegan may seek certiorari) |
| Whether Mohegan Sun (and timing of its intervention) meets prerequisites for certiorari | Mohegan: licensing process was quasi‑judicial, no adequate alternative remedy, and Mohegan suffered substantial injury; its intervention relates back and was timely | Commission: intervention untimely; certiorari inappropriate because no judicially protectable right and proceedings not quasi‑judicial | Held: Mohegan satisfied certiorari prerequisites; intervention was timely under the circumstances |
| Whether the City and Union have standing to pursue certiorari or declaratory claims | City/Union: statute contemplates host‑community and labor interests; they suffered concrete injuries warranting review | Commission: injuries are too remote; § 17(g) limits review and legislature did not create rights for municipalities or unions | Held: City and Union lack standing to pursue certiorari and declaratory claims (claims dismissed) |
| Whether the individuals plausibly alleged Open Meeting Law violations | Individuals: calendar entries and other facts plausibly show deliberations by a quorum in private and other violations | Commission: allegations are speculative and insufficient to state a claim | Held: Reversed in part — some calendar entries and the plaintiffs’ summary plausibly allege violations and survive dismissal; other allegations remain speculative |
Key Cases Cited
- Swan v. Justices of the Superior Court, 222 Mass. 542 (1916) (extraordinary writs like certiorari not lightly ousted by statutory language)
- Indeck v. Clients' Sec. Bd., 450 Mass. 379 (2008) (three‑part test for certiorari: quasi‑judicial proceeding, no adequate remedy, substantial injury)
- Abdow v. Attorney Gen., 468 Mass. 478 (2014) (statute gives applicants no constitutionally protected property interest in a gaming license)
- Caesars Mass. Mgt. Co. v. Crosby, 778 F.3d 327 (1st Cir. 2015) (federal appellate treatment of gaming license expectations under Massachusetts law)
- Figgs v. Boston Hous. Auth., 469 Mass. 354 (2014) (substantial evidence standard for judicial‑type administrative proceedings)
- Hoffer v. Board of Registration in Medicine, 461 Mass. 451 (2012) (distinguishing quasi‑judicial characteristics and treating wrongful withholding of benefit as injury for certiorari)