Opinion ID: 1695611
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Controlling the scope of gambling in Wisconsin is a significant and legitimate public purpose.

Text: ¶ 331 And finally, even if I were willing to ignore all the foundational requirements for the commencement of an impairment of contract analysis set out above and move into the majority opinion's three-part analysis, Article IV, Section 24 of the Wisconsin Constitution does not run afoul of the United States Constitution for at least two reasons: (1) Article IV, Section 24 does not operate as a substantial impairment; and (2) the State has a significant and legitimate public purpose behind its prohibition of all types of gambling. Energy Reserves, 459 U.S. at 411, 103 S.Ct. 697. ¶ 332 When we evaluate whether a state law constitutes a substantial impairment of a contract right, we are to consider whether the [] (enterprise) the complaining party has entered has been regulated in the past. Id. (citing Allied Structural, 438 U.S. at 242 n. 13, 98 S.Ct. 2716.) When he purchased into an enterprise already regulated in the particular to which he now objects, he purchased subject to further legislation upon the same topic. Energy Reserves, 459 U.S. at 411, 103 S.Ct. 697 (quoting Veix v. Sixth Ward Bldg. & Loan Ass'n, 310 U.S. 32, 38, 60 S.Ct. 792, 84 L.Ed. 1061 (1940)). ¶ 333 Here, gambling has long been subject to prohibition under the criminal laws of Wisconsin. The Tribal Nations acknowledge in the compacts that the State may enforce its criminal gambling statutes on tribal lands. Therefore, there has always been an expectation that the enterprise of gambling could be subject to further legislation. In addition, as we explained above, the Tribal Nations could not mount a breach of contract action against the State if the Governor chose not to agree to additional types of games. Therefore, the prohibition of new types of games is not a substantial impairment of an enforceable right. ¶ 334 In addition, the State has a significant and legitimate public purpose behind Article IV, Section 24 of the Wisconsin Constitution, which prohibits compacting for types of games that were not permitted in the 1991-92 compacts. The State's prohibition is done in the exercise of its police power in the area of public morals, which is always a legitimate subject for state laws. Douglas, 168 U.S. at 502-03. Therefore, even if I were to employ the contracts clause analysis the majority opinion sets out, Article IV, Section 24 is not in conflict with Article I, Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution. ¶ 335 The majority opinion justifies its reversal of our decision in Panzer by asserting that the contract impairment argument was not discussed in Panzer. Majority op., ¶ 94. It laments, We find it disingenuous that some members of the Panzer majority refused to reach the Contract Clause analysis that was properly before it, and now criticize the Dairyland majority opinion for deciding the issue. Id. The majority opinion is recreating history as it would like it to be, rather than as it was. The contract impairment issue was never before the court in Panzer. Panzer, 271 Wis.2d 295, ¶ 102, 680 N.W.2d 666. No party briefed or argued contract impairment in Panzer; therefore, we did not decide it. As various members of this court have said, we should not reach out and decide issues that were not presented to the court by the parties. Town of Beloit v. County of Rock, 2003 WI 8, ¶ 72, 259 Wis.2d 37, 657 N.W.2d 344 (Abrahamson, C.J., dissenting). However, in Panzer, the dissent did not follow that rule. Instead, it created and then decided the contract impairment issue, without the benefit of briefing or argument. Panzer, 271 Wis.2d 295, ¶¶ 210-218, 680 N.W.2d 666 (Abrahamson, C.J., dissenting). ¶ 336 Panzer turned on whether the Governor had the power to enter into compacts for types of games that were not included in the 1991-92 compacts. We concluded that the constitutional amendment, Article IV, Section 24 of the Wisconsin Constitution, withdrew that power from both the legislature and the Governor. Panzer, 271 Wis.2d 295, ¶¶ 83-86, 96-97, 680 N.W.2d 666. Based on this lack of power to validly compact for the new types of games that were added in the 2003 compacts, we concluded those games were unlawful. Id., ¶ 96. The majority opinion never overrules this holding of Panzer. Majority op., ¶ 80 n. 61. ¶ 337 In the case before us, no party has argued that the people of Wisconsin, by enacting the 1993 constitutional amendment, did not withdraw from the legislature and the Governor the power to authorize new types of gambling. All that has been argued is that invalidating the new types of games added in 2003 would violate Article I, Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution and Article I, Section 12 of the Wisconsin Constitution. The majority opinion ignores the Panzer limitation on the power of the Governor as though it were the same issue as whether the State has a contractual obligation to add new types of games. Analytically, the two issues are very different. Compare Panzer, 271 Wis.2d 295, ¶¶ 83-102, 680 N.W.2d 666 with ¶¶ 304-34 of this concurrence/dissent. Accordingly, because I do not agree with the analysis set out in the majority opinion or its decision to overrule Panzer, I respectfully dissent. III. CONCLUSION ¶ 338 In 2004, we decided the effect of the 1993 constitutional amendments on the new types of games that were added to the Indian gaming compacts in 2003; the new games violate Wisconsin's criminal statutes. Panzer, 271 Wis.2d 295, ¶ 96, 680 N.W.2d 666. The decisions of this court are final, if not set aside on a motion for reconsideration made within 20 days in the case in which the ruling was issued, Wis. Stat. § 809.64, or overturned by a federal court on a federal question, see Lobermeier, 120 Wis.2d at 421-22, 355 N.W.2d 531; Webster, 114 Wis.2d at 426 n. 4, 338 N.W.2d 474. The Governor exercised neither option, but instead he asserts that Article IV, Section 24 of the Wisconsin Constitution, enacted by the people of Wisconsin, cannot be applied to the Tribal Nations that have gambling operations in Wisconsin. ¶ 339 The majority opinion adopts the view of the Governor, wherein he argues on behalf of the Tribal Nations that Article IV, Section 24 of the Wisconsin Constitution cannot be applied to Indian gambling operations in Wisconsin. I conclude that the majority opinion is in error because: (1) in acceding to the Governor's request on behalf of the Tribal Nations, the majority opinion surrenders this court's judicial independence so necessary to protect the people of Wisconsin in a tripartite system of government; (2) the gaming compacts are not the type of contract that is protected by either Article I, Section 12 of the Wisconsin Constitution or Article I, Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution; (3) there is no obligation to contract for new types of games that were not permitted under the 1991-92 compacts; therefore, there can be no impairment of a contractual obligation in that regard; and (4) the State has a significant and legitimate public purpose in controlling the type of gambling that occurs within Wisconsin's borders, which Article I, Section 10 does not affect.