Campbell Cnty. Bd. of Comm'rs v. Wyo. Horse Racing, LLC

• Citation: 523 P.3d 901
• Decision Date: 31 January 2023
• Docket Number: S-22-0114
• Parties: CAMPBELL COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, Appellant (Respondent), v. WYOMING HORSE RACING, LLC and Wyoming Downs, LLC, Appellees (Petitioners).
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming

523 P.3d 901

CAMPBELL COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, Appellant (Respondent),

v.WYOMING HORSE RACING, LLC and Wyoming Downs, LLC, Appellees (Petitioners).

S-22-0114

Supreme Court of Wyoming.

January 31, 2023

Representing Appellant: Patrick M. Brady and John A. Sundahl, Sundahl, Powers, Kapp & Martin, LLC, Cheyenne, Wyoming; Thomas A. Thompson, MacPherson & Thompson, LLC, Buffalo, Wyoming. Argument by Mr. Brady and Mr. Sundahl.

Representing Appellees: Bradley T. Cave, Matthew J. Micheli, and Macrina M. Sharpe, Holland & Hart, LLP, Cheyenne, Wyoming; Robert C. Jarosh and Traci L. Lacock, Hirst Applegate LLP, Cheyenne, Wyoming. Argument by Mr. Jarosh.

Before FOX, C.J., KAUTZ, BOOMGAARDEN, GRAY, and FENN, JJ.

BOOMGAARDEN, Justice.

[¶1] The Wyoming Pari-Mutuel Act (the "Pari-Mutuel Act") governs pari-mutuel events and wagering in Wyoming.¹ Under the Pari-Mutuel Act, the Wyoming Gaming Commission ("Gaming Commission") is tasked with permitting and regulating pari-mutuel and simulcast events.² Before the Gaming Commission may issue permits to a corporation seeking to conduct pari-mutuel events and simulcasting, the corporation must obtain the approval of the board of county commissioners in each county where they intend to operate. Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 11-25-102(a)(vii)(A), (B) ; Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 11-25-201(a). This case turns on whether a board of county commissioners can revoke its prior approvals after the Gaming Commission has issued the permits and authorized simulcasting.

[¶2] In April 2021, the Campbell County Board of Commissioners ("Campbell County") adopted Resolution 2077, which "revoked and superseded" previous resolutions approving Wyoming Horse Racing, LLC and Wyoming Downs, LLC ("Petitioners") to conduct simulcast operations under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 11-25-102(a)(vii)(B). Resolution 2077 also placed conditions on all future approvals. Petitioners sought judicial review of Resolution 2077 under the Wyoming Administrative Procedure Act ("WAPA"), asserting the resolution exceeded Campbell County's statutory authority under the Pari-Mutuel Act.³ The district court agreed and set aside the resolution under WAPA. Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 16-3-114(c)(ii)(C) (LexisNexis 2021). Campbell County appeals. Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 16-3-114(a) ; W.R.A.P. 12.11. We affirm.

ISSUE

[¶3] The dispositive issue is:

Whether Campbell County has authority under the Pari-Mutuel Act to revoke its prior approvals of Petitioners’ simulcast operations.

FACTS

[¶4] In 2013, Campbell County adopted Resolutions 1801 and 1804 approving Petitioners to operate pari-mutuel wagering on live horse racing, historic horse racing, and simulcast events in Campbell County. After Campbell County gave its approvals, the Gaming Commission issued pari-mutuel and simulcast permits to Petitioners authorizing them to operate in the county. Wyoming Downs conducted their simulcast operation out of a satellite facility in Gillette. In 2014, Campbell County approved a change of address for Wyoming Downs’ satellite facility. In 2020, Campbell County approved an additional Wyoming Downs satellite facility in Gillette.⁴

[¶5] According to Campbell County, its purpose in approving Petitioners’ operations was to promote live horse racing in the county because it recognized "the economic and community benefits[.]" Campbell County contends that by 2020 Petitioners’ operations were not meeting the purpose of the 2013 resolutions because only a small number of live horse races had occurred during the previous six years. Following a public hearing, Campbell County adopted Resolution 2077 to attempt to remedy that situation.

[¶6] Most relevant here, Resolution 2077 states that "[t]he previous resolutions of the Campbell County Board of Commissioners concerning approval of simulcasting off of permitted live horse racetrack premises are hereby revoked and superseded by this Resolution."⁵ (Emphasis added). This revocation provision prevented Petitioners from operating as they had under the prior resolutions.

[¶7] Petitioners timely sought judicial review under WAPA, arguing Campbell County exceeded its statutory authority under the Pari-Mutuel Act. They asked the district court to set aside Resolution 2077. The court entered its order on Petitioners’ appeal in March 2022, holding the revocation provision fell outside Campbell County's statutory authority under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 11-25-201(a). In so holding, the court ordered Resolution 2077 be set aside under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 16-3-114(c)(ii)(C). The court deemed it unnecessary to address Petitioners’ remaining issues, including whether Resolution 2077's conditions on future approvals also exceeded Campbell County's statutory authority.

[¶8] Campbell County timely appealed.

DISCUSSION

[¶9] As a threshold matter, Campbell County asserts courts lack jurisdiction to review Resolution 2077 because it was a legislative act immune from judicial review. We review jurisdictional challenges de novo. McCallister v. State ex rel. Dep't of Workforce Servs. , Workers’ Comp. Div. , 2019 WY 47, ¶ 10, 440 P.3d 1078, 1081 (Wyo. 2019) (citing Vance v. City of Laramie , 2016 WY 106, ¶ 10, 382 P.3d 1104, 1106 (Wyo. 2016) ); Wyo. Cmty. Coll. Comm'n v. Casper Cmty. Coll. Dist. , 2001 WY 86, ¶ 12, 31 P.3d 1242, 1247–48 (Wyo. 2001) ("The first and fundamental question on every appeal is that of jurisdiction[.]" (citation omitted)).

[¶10] "The right of judicial review of an administrative decision is statutory." Holding's Little Am. v. Bd. of Cty. Comm'rs of Laramie Cty. , 670 P.2d 699, 702 (Wyo. 1983). Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 16-3-114(a) provides:

(a) Subject to the requirement that administrative remedies be exhausted and in the absence of any statutory or common-law provision precluding or limiting judicial review, any person aggrieved or adversely affected in fact by a final decision of an agency in a contested case, or by other agency action or inaction ... is entitled to judicial review in the district court for the county in which the injury or harm for which relief is sought occurred[.]

Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 16-3-114(a) (emphasis added); see also W.R.A.P. 12.01. No one disputes the Campbell County Board of Commissioners is an agency as defined by WAPA. Holding's Little Am. , 670 P.2d at 701–02 ("The board of county commissioners is an agency as defined by the Wyoming Administrative Procedure Act[.]"); see Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 16-3-101(b)(i) (LexisNexis 2021) (defining "agency"). Further, "[a]n aggrieved party may obtain review of any final judgment of the district court by appeal to the supreme court." W.R.A.P. 12.11(a).

[¶11] Where, as here, there is no issue as to the exhaustion of administrative remedies, WAPA makes clear judicial review for an aggrieved or adversely affected party is limited only if a "statutory or common-law provision" expressly precludes or limits judicial review. Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 16-3-114(a). Campbell County cites nothing in the Pari-Mutuel Act or other statutes preventing courts from reviewing Resolution 2077 and we have found no such statutory provision. See Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 11-25-101 et seq.

[¶12] Campbell County instead relies on a common law doctrine which states "the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act do not apply to legislative actions or hearings." See Holding's Little Am. , 670 P.2d at 702. See also McGann v. City Council of City of Laramie , 581 P.2d 1104 (Wyo. 1978) ; Lund v. Schrader , 492 P.2d 202 (Wyo. 1971) ; Scarlett v. Town Council, Town of Jackson, Teton Cty. , 463 P.2d 26 (Wyo. 1969). This Court has stated whether an agency's "action is legislative is usually determined by comparison with adjudicatory proceedings." Holding's Little Am. , 670 P.2d at 702 (citation omitted). When an agency acts legislatively it tends to "produce[ ] a general rule or policy which applies to a general class of individuals, interests, or situations." Id. Whereas the agency's "adjudicatory functions apply generally to identifiable persons and specific situations." Id. (citing 1 Am. Jur. 2d Administrative Law § 164 ).

[¶13] Accordingly, Campbell County seeks to avoid judicial scrutiny of Resolution 2077 by characterizing it as a single policy decision based on "a legislative choice of general applicability." We, like the district court, conclude the County's characterization of Resolution 2077 is too broad. As noted, Resolution 2077 did generally impose conditions on all future approvals for simulcasting, but the County cannot gloss over that the resolution also specifically revoked its prior approvals of Petitioners’ operations.

[¶14] The revocation provision clearly "aggrieved or adversely affected" Petitioners, as they claimed the Gaming Commission required them to shut down their operations prior to the resolution taking effect. The County does not dispute this point. Judicial review of Resolution 2077 is therefore allowed under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 16-3-114(a) and W.R.A.P. 12.01. See also W.R.A.P. 12.11.

[¶15] Our review of Resolution 2077 is governed by Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 16-3-114(c), which states:

(c) To the extent necessary to make a decision and when presented, the reviewing court shall decide all relevant questions of law, interpret constitutional and statutory provisions, and determine the meaning or applicability of the terms of an agency action. In making the following determinations, the court shall review the whole record or those parts of it cited by a party and due account shall be taken of the rule of prejudicial error. The reviewing court shall:

....

(ii) Hold unlawful and set aside agency action, findings and conclusions found to be:

....

(C) In excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority or limitations or lacking statutory right[.]

Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 16-3-114(c)(ii)(C).

[¶16] When we consider an appeal from the district court involving review of an agency action, "we afford no special deference to the district court's decision[.]" Lemus-Frausto v. State , 2022 WY 154, ¶ 8, 520 P.3d 1152, 1155 (Wyo. 2022) (citations omitted). Instead, we...