Keystone Redevelopment Partners, LLC v. Decker
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 398
3rd Cir.2011Background
- The Pennsylvania Race Horse and Gaming Act established the Gaming Control Board to license a limited number of gaming entities.
- The Board comprises seven voting members with fixed terms and restrictions on political activity and contributions.
- Statutory/regulatory processes govern hearings, notices, BIE background checks, and recusal/ex parte limitations.
- Keystone applied for a Category 2 slot-machine license in Philadelphia; the Board initially granted licenses to Foxwoods and HSP Gaming, denying Keystone and others in December 2006.
- The Board’s 113-page written decision articulated its factual findings and reasons for votes, including negative considerations linked to Atlantic City ownership.
- Keystone amended its federal complaint in 2009 claiming due process and equal protection violations; the District Court dismissed some claims but allowed others against former Board members to proceed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Board members have quasi-judicial immunity | Keystone claims no immunity for licensing decisions harming commerce. | Board members are quasi-judicial and entitled to absolute immunity under Butz and Cleavinger. | Quasi-judicial immunity affirmed; Board defendants entitled to absolute immunity. |
| Whether the Board's licensing decision was a judicial function | Decision was policy-based, not judicial, undermining immunity. | Decision resembled judicial-adjudicatory process with safeguards and adverarial elements. | Decision is quasi-judicial in nature; immunity applies. |
| Whether the Dormant Commerce Clause violated Keystone’s rights | Board’s use of Atlantic City ties discriminated against out-of-state interests. | Board’s criteria rationally related to state interests; no discrimination; no quid pro quo. | Board's approach passes rational-basis review; no Dormant Commerce Clause violation. |
| Whether Keystone’s Equal Protection claim was clearly established | Out-of-state ties favored local interests in violation of equal protection. | Classification is rational and tied to legitimate state objectives (revenue, tourism, etc.). | Rational basis upheld; Keystone failed to show a clearly established violation at the time. |
Key Cases Cited
- Butz v. Economout, 438 U.S. 478 (U.S. 1978) (Butz factors define quasi-judicial immunity)
- Cleavinger v. Saxner, 474 U.S. 193 (U.S. 1985) (listed factors for judicial-like processes)
- Dotzel v. Ashbridge, 438 F.3d 320 (3d Cir. 2006) (Butz framework applied to municipal board immunity)
- Riverwalk Casino, LP v. Pa. Gaming Control Bd., 592 Pa. 505, 926 A.2d 926 (Pa. 2007) (Pennsylvania Supreme Court recognized quasi-judicial Board)
- Kraft v. Jacka, 669 F. Supp. 333 (D. Nev. 1987) (Nevada Gaming Commission immunity discussion)
- Beck v. Texas State Bd. of Dental Exam’rs, 204 F.3d 629 (5th Cir. 2000) (adversarial proceedings support immunity)