Eugene J. Kopecky v. Iowa Racing and Gaming Commission, 2017 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 24

In 2013 Linn County voters approved a referendum permitting gambling; a subsequent applicant for a casino license was denied in 2014 after the Iowa Racing and Gaming Commission (Commission) relied on market studies showing the new facility would cannibalize revenue from existing casinos.
Eugene Kopecky, a Linn County resident (not the denied applicant), petitioned the Commission for a declaratory order asking (1) whether the Commission may consider the existence or impact on an existing license in one county when deciding to issue a license in another county, and (2) whether any administrative rule inconsistent with chapter 99F is void.
The Iowa Gaming Association intervened to defend the Commission’s authority; at a hearing the Commission answered Question 1 affirmatively and declined to rule on Question 2 (saying courts decide rule validity), then issued a written declaratory order.
Kopecky sought judicial review in district court, which affirmed the Commission’s declaratory order; Kopecky appealed only the holding on Question 1.
The issue centers on whether the Commission’s rule (Iowa Admin. Code r. 491—1.7) allowing consideration of the economic impact on existing gaming facilities when licensing a new facility exceeds statutory authority under Iowa Code chapter 99F and section 17A.19(10)(b).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Commission may consider the economic impact on existing casinos when issuing a new license	Kopecky: Once a county approves a referendum, Commission must issue a license to a qualified applicant and may not apply additional economic-impact criteria	Commission/IGA: Chapter 99F grants broad licensing and rulemaking authority, including evaluating economic impact and selecting applicants that best serve Iowa citizens	Court: Commission may consider economic impact on existing operators; rule permitting this is within statutory authority

Renda v. Iowa Civil Rights Comm’n, 784 N.W.2d 8 (Iowa 2010) (standards for judicial review of agency action under Iowa Code chapter 17A)
Auen v. Alcoholic Beverages Div., 679 N.W.2d 586 (Iowa 2004) (appellate review applies statutory standards in chapter 17A)
Alfredo v. Iowa Racing & Gaming Comm’n, 555 N.W.2d 827 (Iowa 1996) (legislature empowered Commission to regulate gambling under chapter 99F)
ABC Disposal Sys., Inc. v. Dep’t of Nat. Res., 681 N.W.2d 596 (Iowa 2004) (apply plain statutory meaning when language is clear)
Ramirez-Trujillo v. Quality Egg, L.L.C., 878 N.W.2d 759 (Iowa 2016) (use of “shall” generally creates mandatory duty)
Iowa Nat’l Indus. Loan Co. v. Iowa State Dep’t of Revenue, 224 N.W.2d 437 (Iowa 1974) (distinguishes permissive “may” from mandatory “shall")