Share 
State of Play’s TL;DR
- The Wabanaki Nations have formally intervened in a lawsuit challenging Maine’s new law granting tribes exclusive rights to online casino games.
- This dispute could delay or reshape Maine’s move to become the eighth US state with legalized online casinos.
In January, the Oxford Casino – backed by Churchill Downs Inc. – sued Maine, arguing the new law that gives the Wabanaki Nations exclusive rights to operate online casino games creates an illegal “race-based monopoly.”
On Wednesday, the four Wabanaki tribes (Houlton Band of Maliseet Indians, the Mi’kmaq Nation, the Passamaquoddy Tribe, and the Penobscot Nation) filed a joint motion to intervene; a judge granted the request the following day.
Maine Gov. Janet Mills allowed the bill to become law on Jan. 8 without her signature after tribal lobbying and despite objections from some state agencies.
Tribal leaders emphasize the law’s economic importance. They say exclusive online casino access builds independent revenue to fund health care, food assistance, public infrastructure and other services that benefit tribal and nontribal residents. Tribal attorneys warn that Oxford’s equal-protection argument targets the Nations’ unique sovereign status and could threaten longstanding legal principles protecting tribal-state arrangements.
Ruling could impact state-tribe compacts in other states
The lawsuit injects near-term uncertainty about when and how online casino gaming will launch in Maine. If the court sides with Oxford, exclusive tribal online casino rights could be curtailed or require legislative fixes, opening the door for commercial operators to seek market access or licensing deals.
That outcome would change revenue splits, tax or fee structures, and promotional strategies for both tribal operators and commercial entrants. Operators – including Churchill Downs and potential platform partners – face legal and commercial risk: launch timelines, partnerships, and investment decisions may be delayed while litigation plays out.
An affirmation of tribal exclusivity would cement a model where tribes control online casino supply in Maine, directing proceeds toward tribal governmental services.
Either path carries implications for player protections, market competition, and how states balance tribal sovereignty with commercial access.
Based on reporting by Reuben M. Schafir for the Portland Press Herald.
