NARRAGANSETT INDIAN TRIBE v. STATE of Rhode Island and UTGR, Inc. d/b/a Twin River and Newport Grand, LLC, Intervenor Defendant.
No. 2012-323-Appeal.
Supreme Court of Rhode Island.
Jan. 10, 2014.
1106
Michael W. Field, Department of Attorney General, for Defendant.
Present: SUTTELL, C.J., FLAHERTY, ROBINSON, and INDEGLIA, JJ.
OPINION
Justice INDEGLIA, for the Court.
The defendant, the State of Rhode Island (State), appeals from the entry of partial summary judgment in the Superior Court for the plaintiff, the Narragansett Indian Tribe (Tribe), finding that the plaintiff had standing to pursue a constitutional challenge to the 2011 Casino Act,
I
Facts and Travel
The underlying facts of this case are undisputed. The plaintiff, Narragansett Indian Tribe, is a group of Native Americans indigenous to the land that is now the state of Rhode Island. In 1880, the General Assembly disestablished the Tribe, leaving it with only two acres of its reservation.
Over the course of the next century, the Tribe and the state engaged in a series of disputes wherein the Tribe attempted to
In 1988, Congress passed the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA),
This Court has twice been asked to issue advisory opinions concerning proposed legislation in the Tribe‘s ongoing efforts to establish gaming in Rhode Island and has found that the proposed legislation contained constitutional defects. See In re Advisory Opinion to the Governor (Casino I), 856 A.2d 320 (R.I.2004) and In re Advisory Opinion to the House of Representatives (Casino II), 885 A.2d 698 (R.I.2005). Following these attempts, in 2006, the Tribe also proposed an amendment to the Rhode Island Constitution in an attempt to establish gaming, which was defeated in a voter referendum.
Twin River2 and Newport Grand3 are state-licensed gambling venues in the state of Rhode Island where video lottery terminal (VLT) machines are presently utilized. By statute, the Tribe is entitled to receive 0.17 percent of net terminal income from the authorized VLT machines at Twin River up to a maximum of $10,000,000 per year.
In June 2011 and April 2012, Governor Lincoln Chafee signed into law two pieces of legislation providing for the establishment of state-authorized table games at the gambling facilities located at Twin River and Newport Grand, respectively, subject to approval of voter referenda (the Casino Acts). See P.L. 2011, ch. 151, art. 25, § 2 and P.L. 2012, ch. 24, § 1. On September 28, 2011, plaintiff Tribe filed the instant complaint4 seeking a declaration that the Casino Acts are unconstitu-
The parties filed cross-motions for partial summary judgment, both of which came before the Washington County Superior Court for hearing on May 30, 2012. The hearing justice issued a written decision on June 29, 2012, which found that plaintiff did have standing but that plaintiff had failed to meet its burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the Casino Acts violate a provision of the Rhode Island Constitution. Accordingly, the hearing justice granted defendants’ motions for partial summary judgment on July 10, 2012.
The plaintiff timely filed a notice of appeal to this Court on the hearing justice‘s grant of defendants’ motions on July 23, 2012. The state filed a notice of cross-appeal as to the hearing justice‘s determination that plaintiff had standing on September 13, 2012. This Court declined to consolidate the two appeals. Accordingly, only defendant‘s appeal on the issue of standing is before this Court for decision.6
II
Standard of Review
It is well settled that our review of a hearing justice‘s grant of summary judgment is de novo. Sisto v. America Condominium Association, Inc., 68 A.3d 603, 611 (R.I.2013). “We apply the same standards and rules as did the motion justice.” Beauregard v. Gouin, 66 A.3d 489, 493 (R.I.2013). We view the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. See id. “Summary judgment is appropriate when no genuine issue of material fact is evident from ‘the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits if any,’ and the motion justice finds that the moving party is entitled to prevail as a matter of law.” Swain v. Estate of Tyre ex rel. Reilly, 57 A.3d 283, 288 (R.I.2012) (quoting Beacon Mutual Insurance Co. v. Spino Brothers, Inc., 11 A.3d 645, 648 (R.I.2011)).
III
Discussion
The state argues on appeal that the hearing justice erred in determining that the Tribe had standing to challenge the constitutionality of the Casino Acts. The state contends that the Tribe has not suffered an injury in fact that differs from that of the public at large. The state further insists that the hearing justice erred in finding that the public interest
Standing is a threshold inquiry into whether the party seeking relief is entitled to bring suit. See Blackstone Valley Chamber of Commerce v. Public Utilities Commission, 452 A.2d 931, 932, 933 (R.I.1982). When standing is challenged, “the focal point shifts to the claimant, not the claim, and a court must determine if the plaintiff ‘whose standing is challenged is a proper party to request an adjudication of a particular issue and not whether the issue itself is justiciable’ * * *” McKenna v. Williams, 874 A.2d 217, 226 (R.I.2005) (quoting Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83, 99-100 (1968)). As this Court has stated, “[t]he essence of the question of standing is whether the party seeking relief has alleged such a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy as to ensure concrete adverseness that sharpens the presentation of the issues upon which the court depends for an illumination of the questions presented.” Blackstone Valley Chamber of Commerce, 452 A.2d at 933.
In determining whether a party has standing, a court begins with the pivotal question of whether the party alleges that the challenged action has caused him or her injury in fact. See Pontbriand v. Sundlun, 699 A.2d 856, 862 (R.I.1997). This Court has required that the alleged injury in fact must be “an invasion of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized * * * and (b) actual or imminent, not ‘conjectural’ or ‘hypothetical.‘” Id. (quoting Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992)). In Rhode Island, “generalized claims alleging purely public harm are an insufficient basis for sustaining a private lawsuit.” Watson v. Fox, 44 A.3d 130, 136 (R.I.2012). Moreover, this Court has repeatedly emphasized that “[t]he line is not between a substantial injury and an insubstantial injury. The line is between injury and no injury.” Pontbriand, 699 A.2d at 862 (quoting Matunuck Beach Hotel, Inc. v. Sheldon, 121 R.I. 386, 396, 399 A.2d 489, 494 (1979)). On rare occasions, however, this Court will overlook the standing requirement by invoking the so-called “substantial public interest” exception in order to decide the merits of a case of substantial public importance. See, e.g., Burns v. Sundlun, 617 A.2d 114, 116 (R.I.1992) (invoking the public interest exception where “[t]he plaintiff raise[d] a question of statutory interpretation of great importance to citizens in localities that could become home to gambling facilities seeking to simulcast and invite wagering on out-of-state events“).
The state argues that the Tribe has not demonstrated that it has suffered an injury in fact distinguishable from any injury suffered by the public at large. We find the state‘s contention to be without merit. The Tribe bases its argument of an injury in fact on its statutory right to receive 0.17 percent of the net terminal income from the authorized VLT machines. The parties did not dispute at oral argument that, as a result of the proposed establishment of table games at Twin River, some 200 VLT machines have been removed. The state contends that it is by no means certain that the Tribe will, in fact, suffer any reduction in income from the removal of the machines. The state avers that the expected increase in traffic to the Twin River establishment due to the new table games will offset the reduction in the number of machines. We are not persuaded by the state‘s argument. On the contrary, we conclude that it is reasonable to expect that a consequence of there being 200 fewer VLT machines may well be a reduction in the net terminal income
In so holding, we emphasize as well that the Tribe does not need to have alleged that its loss in income from the removal of the machines will be a substantial one. As we have previously stated, the requirement for standing is only that plaintiffs have suffered an injury, not that the injury be substantial. See Pontbriand, 699 A.2d at 862. We note, however, that the loss of some 200 VLT machines as individual sources of income is not a trivial one. While the lure of the table games at Twin River might cause some new patrons to also try their luck at the VLT machines, these new patrons will have significantly fewer machines at which they might play.
The Tribe urges this Court to find, as did the hearing justice, that the instant matter also involves a question of substantial public interest. We note that this Court has generally been reluctant to invoke the public interest exception, which is reserved for rare circumstances. See Watson, 44 A.3d at 138; In re Review of Proposed Town of New Shoreham Project, 19 A.3d 1226, 1229 (R.I.2011) (mem.). Accordingly, because we hold that the Tribe has demonstrated an injury in fact, we need not, and do not, reach the question of whether this qualifies within the public interest exception to standing. In so doing, we exercise our prerogative of affirming the hearing justice‘s finding for a different reason. See Levine v. Bess Eaton Donut Flour Co., 705 A.2d 980, 984 (R.I.1998) (holding that the Supreme Court can affirm a trial justice‘s decision for reasons other than those relied upon by the trial justice).
IV
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, we hold that the Tribe was entitled to bring its claims challenging the Casino Acts. Accordingly, the judgment of the Superior Court finding that the Tribe had standing is affirmed. The record in this case will be retained by this Court so that the Tribe may proceed in its cross-appeal of the Superior Court‘s grant of partial summary judgment in favor of the defendants.
Justice GOLDBERG did not participate.