81 A.3d 1106
R.I.2014Background
- The Narragansett Indian Tribe (the Tribe), federally recognized, regained 1,800 acres in Charlestown under a 1978 JMOU but those lands were treated as subject to state law for many purposes; a 1996 amendment clarified they are not "Indian lands" for IGRA purposes.
- The Tribe receives statutorily mandated payments equal to 0.17% of net terminal income from VLTs at Twin River (capped annually).
- Rhode Island enacted the 2011 Casino Act authorizing state‑approved table games at Twin River; roughly 200 VLT machines were removed as a result.
- The Tribe sued, alleging the Casino Acts violated article 6, § 15 (lotteries must be operated by the state) and the non‑delegation doctrine; UTGR (Twin River) intervened as defendant.
- The Superior Court granted partial summary judgment for defendants on the Acts’ facial constitutionality but held the Tribe had standing; the State appealed only the standing determination.
- The Rhode Island Supreme Court affirmed the Superior Court’s ruling that the Tribe has standing to challenge the Casino Acts, allowing the Tribe to pursue its cross‑appeal on the merits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to challenge Casino Acts | Tribe: statutory right to 0.17% of VLT net terminal income gives a concrete, particularized injury because removal of ~200 VLTs likely reduces its payments | State: any alleged injury is speculative and identical to the public's; Tribe lacks an injury in fact and cannot rely on conjectural future losses | Held: Tribe has standing — a reasonable likelihood of reduced VLT income from 200 fewer machines suffices as an injury in fact; public‑interest exception need not be reached |
Key Cases Cited
- Pontbriand v. Sundlun, 699 A.2d 856 (R.I. 1997) (defines injury‑in‑fact requirements for standing)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (U.S. 1992) (federal standard for concrete, particularized, actual or imminent injury)
- Blackstone Valley Chamber of Commerce v. Public Utilities Commission, 452 A.2d 931 (R.I. 1982) (standing as threshold inquiry focused on plaintiff)
- Watson v. Fox, 44 A.3d 130 (R.I. 2012) (generalized public harm insufficient for private standing)
- Haviland v. Simmons, 45 A.3d 1246 (R.I. 2012) (uncertainty about future harm can still support standing if concrete and particularized)
- Burns v. Sundlun, 617 A.2d 114 (R.I. 1992) (public‑interest exception to standing applied in rare, significant cases)
- Narragansett Indian Tribe v. State of Rhode Island, 449 F.3d 16 (1st Cir. 2006) (recognition of the Tribe as an independent sovereign)