A new Connecticut federal court filing states that gambling operator MGM Resort International’s lawsuit aiming to prevent the establishment of a third tribal casino within the state’s borders should be dismissed. The court further noted that it is still unclear whether state legislators would eventually allow casino expansion in Connecticut.
MGM Resorts is currently building a $950-million in Springfield, Massachusetts. The gambling company has filed a lawsuit against Connecticut Gov. Dannel Malloy and other officials, contending that a 2015 law favored the state’s two federally recognized tribes – the Mohegans and the Mashantucket Pequots, in their bid to build a jointly operated casino. Thus, the said law excluded other operators, MGM Resorts included, that might express interest in establishing the state’s third casino.
Currently, the Mohegan Tribe runs Mohegan Sun and the Mashantucket Pequot Tribe manages Foxwoods Resort Casino. Both gambling venues are located on reservation land. Last year, the two tribes expressed interest in opening a joint casino in the northern part of the state in a bid to blunt competition from neighboring Massachusetts and to preserve gaming revenue and jobs within the state’s borders.
MGM Resorts argued that the 2015 law breached the U.S. Constitution and its equal protection clause in particular. In addition to this, the gambling operator claimed that the two tribes were unrightfully given the right to build and operate their joint gaming facility on non-reservation land.
Connecticut Attorney General George Jepsen’s administration said in a filing that the Mohegans and the Mashantucket Pequots were indeed allowed to start looking for proposals for the location of the state’s third casino. However, the plan may never be materialized as it still needs to be approved by the Legislature and this is why the casino operator’s legal battle should be dismissed.
MGM Resorts spokesman Bernard Kavaler said that the gambling company would keep on trying to prevent the third casino from being built. He pointed out that the bill that was passed in 2015 suggested the opening of commercial gaming and this is why it should have secured “a fair, open, transparent, and competitive process.”
Even though it is interested in operating a casino in Connecticut, MGM Resorts has admitted that it cannot open such a venue in the greater part of the state due to a provision in its agreement with the city of Springfield. Under the said contract, the gaming company cannot build another casino within a 50-mile radius from the Springfield one.
There are currently five different proposals for Connecticut’s third casino in four cities – Hartford, East Hartford, East Windsor, and Windsor Locks. Windsor Locks has proposed to host a gambling venue either at the airport or at the nearby betting parlor.
The two tribes are expected to announce their decision on where the new facility would be located later in 2016, thus allowing potential host municipalities to run referendums and public hearings on the matter.
