128 F.4th 871
7th Cir.2025Background
- Waukegan Potawatomi Casino (WPC), fully owned by the Forest County Potawatomi Community, sought certification from the City of Waukegan to apply for an Illinois casino license.
- WPC’s proposal was the only one of four not certified by the City; WPC claims the process was rigged to benefit a competitor with political connections.
- Evidence included unusual handling of supplemental proposal information, alleged favoritism, and testimony about political influences in the City Council’s decision-making.
- WPC sued in state court alleging state law violations and a federal Equal Protection claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983; the case was removed to federal court.
- The district court granted summary judgment to Waukegan, holding WPC, as a tribal arm, could not bring a § 1983 suit and that its Equal Protection claim also failed as a matter of law.
- On appeal, the Seventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the City, but did not decide the unresolved question of whether tribes can ever bring non-sovereign claims under § 1983.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a tribal entity can sue under § 1983 for non-sovereign rights | Tribes can use § 1983 to vindicate non-sovereign rights; WPC’s claim is such | Tribal arms are not "persons" under § 1983, regardless of rights asserted | Not decided; claim fails on other grounds |
| Class-of-one Equal Protection claim validity | City treated WPC differently from similarly situated applicants without a rational basis, motivated by favoritism | WPC was not similarly situated; multiple rational bases existed for different treatment | Court finds multiple rational bases; claim fails |
| Sufficiency of evidence for animus or corruption | Evidence of political ties, process irregularities, and testimony can support jury inference of animus | Any potential animus is irrelevant if there is a conceivable rational basis for actions | Evidence speculative; rational basis trumps animus in class-of-one claim |
| Proper handling of supplemental applicant information | Unfair for City to accept additional info from others but reject WPC's revised proposal | City requested specific info only from certain applicants for comparison; treated WPC like others who submitted unsolicited supplements | Rational basis for process distinctions; no disparate treatment |
Key Cases Cited
- Inyo County v. Paiute-Shoshone Indians of the Bishop Community, 538 U.S. 701 (Tribes cannot sue under § 1983 to vindicate sovereign rights; leaves open non-sovereign claims)
- Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (Municipalities are considered "persons" for § 1983 claims)
- Will v. Michigan Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58 (States are not "persons" subject to § 1983 liability)
- Brown v. Gardner, 513 U.S. 115 (A word is generally presumed to have the same meaning throughout a statute)
- Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, 30 U.S. (5 Pet.) 1 (Indian tribes’ unique sovereign status explained)