Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-4_24-cv-00969/USCOURTS-ared-4_24-cv-00969-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:2201 Declaratory Judgement

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

CENTRAL DIVISION

CHEROKEE NATION BUSINESSES,

LLC; CHEROKEE NATION

ENTERTAINMENT, LLC; and JENNIFER

MCGILL

V. No. 4:24-cv-969-DPM

PLAINTIFFS

SARAH HUCKABEE SANDERS,

Arkansas Governor, in her official

capacity; ALEX LIEBLONG, in his official

capacity; MARK LAMBERTH, in his

official capacity; STEVE ANTHONY, in

his official capacity; DENNY EAST, in his

official capacity; MICHAEL POST, in his

official capacity; BO HUNTER, in his

official capacity; and STEVE LANDERS,

in his official capacity

ORDER

DEFENDANTS

In November 2024, Arkansas voters approved a ballot measure to

end casino gaming in Pope County. That measure, now ratified as

Arkansas Constitutional Amendment 104, did three things: It repealed

the Arkansas Racing Commission's authority to issue a casino license

in Pope County; it revoked Cherokee Nation Entertainment, LLC's

preexisting casino license there; and it prescribed a new process by

which casino licenses may be issued in the future. The plaintiffs claim

the Amendment violates their rights under the Takings Clause,

Case 4:24-cv-00969-DPM Document 35 Filed 12/12/24 Page 1 of 4
the Contracts Clause, and the Fourteenth Amendment. They have sued

many state officials, seeking injunctive relief. The Court recently held

a hearing, denied a Temporary Restraining Order, scheduled expedited

discovery, and set a March 2025 trial on the merits.

Local Voters in Charge -the ballot question committee behind

Amendment 104 -has moved to intervene either as of right or

permissively. Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a) & (b). It asserts these interests:

keeping Amendment 104 in the books; seeing that its work was not

done in vain; and ensuring local voter control over casino gaming.

Doc. 26 at 6. All parties oppose LVC's intervention.

*

First, LVC's motion to strike the State's response is denied.

While the State did not oppose intervention at the November 2024

TRO hearing, it asked to brief the issue because its lawyers hadn't yet

reviewed LVC's full motion to intervene. Doc. 33 at 26. The Court

noted the State's tentative position and directed post-hearing briefs

from all sides. The State responded late in the day on the November

22nd deadline, revising its position after further consideration. It was

entitled to change course.

Second, LVC's backup request to reply to the State's response is

denied as unnecessary. That response did come after LVC had replied

to the plaintiffs' response. But the State's opposition to LVC's

intervention is largely rooted in the parens patriae doctrine, which the

Case 4:24-cv-00969-DPM Document 35 Filed 12/12/24 Page 2 of 4
plaintiffs had already addressed, and LVC had already responded

to comprehensively. Doc. 24 at 7-9 (Plaintiffs' Response); Doc. 26

at 6-8 (LVC's Reply). LVC's position on that doctrine is clear.

Further briefing would be cumulative.

Third, LVC is not entitled to intervene as a matter of right.

No federal statute gives it an unconditional right to intervene.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a)(1). And LVC has not rebutted the presumption

that the State, acting as parens patriae, will adequately represent the

proposed intervenor's rights. Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a)(2); Little Rock

School District v. North Little Rock School District, 378 F.3d 774,

780 (8th Cir. 2004). LVC's interests in this litigation do not "differ from

or conflict with" the State's interests. South Dakota ex rel. Barnett v.

U.S. Department ofInterior, 317 F.3d 783, 786 (8th Cir. 2003). The only

questions presented here are whether Amendment 104 runs afoul of the

plaintiffs' federal constitutional rights and, if so, whether this Court

should enjoin its enforcement. LVC and the State vigorously seek the

same result-no injunction. And although LVC articulates "different

reasons than the [State] for seeking to defeat the" plaintiffs' claims,

those reasons are subsumed by the State's interest in upholding

Amendment 104. North Dakota ex rel. Stenehjem v. United States,

787 F.3d 918, 921 (8th Cir. 2015). LVC has not made a sufficiently

"strong showing" of inadequate representation. LRSD, 378 F.3d at 780.

-3-

Case 4:24-cv-00969-DPM Document 35 Filed 12/12/24 Page 3 of 4
Fourth, LVC's alternative request for permissive intervention is

denied. No party disputes the timeliness of LVC's motion, which was

filed four days after the complaint. But in the circumstances,

LVC's intervention risks gumming up the works in this fast-paced case.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b)(3). The parties must sprint through expedited

discovery to reach the March 2025 trial. Doc. 25. The intervention

scuffle and related motion practice have already diverted focus from

the merits. This matter needs resolution rather than more tangles.

And as already discussed, the State has defended -and continues to

defend -Amendment 104 with fervor. South Dakota ex rel. Barnett,

317 F.3d at 787.

Last, the Court understands LVC's desire to be heard on the

constitutional questions presented. An amicus brief is the best means to

do so. The Court grants LVC permission to file such a brief. Amicus

brief due thirteen calendar days after the parties file their trial briefs.

* Motions, Doc. 15 & 28, denied.

So Ordered.

,1 D.P. Marshall Jr.

United States District Judge

-4-

Case 4:24-cv-00969-DPM Document 35 Filed 12/12/24 Page 4 of 4