Cherokee Nation Buses. v. Gulfside Casino P'ship
| Docket Number | CV-23-50 |
| Decision Date | 26 October 2023 |
| Parties | CHEROKEE NATION BUSINESSES, LLC; LEGENDS RESORT AND CASINO, LLC; AND THE ARKANSAS RACING COMMISSION APPELLANTS v. GULFSIDE CASINO PARTNERSHIP; AND CHOCTAW NATION OF OKLAHOMA APPELLEES |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from the Pulaski County Circuit Court [No. 60CV-21-1653] Honorable Timothy Davis Fox, Judge
McDaniel Wolff, PLLC, by: Bart W. Calhoun, Scott P Richardson, and Dustin B. McDaniel, for appellants Cherokee Nation Businesses, LLC; and Legends Resort & Casino, LLC.
Tim Griffin, Att'y Gen., by: Noah P. Watson, Sr. Ass't Att'y Gen.; and Carl F. “Trey” Cooper III for appellee Arkansas Racing Commission.
Castleberry Law Firm, PLLC, by: Kenneth P. “Casey” Castleberry; and Dodds, Kidd, Ryan & Rowan, by: Lucas Z. Rowan, for appellee Gulfside Casino Partnership.
Appellate Solutions, PLLC, d/b/a Riordan Law Firm, by: Deborah Truby Riordan; and The Edwards Firm, P.L.L.C., by; Robert H. Edwards, for appellee Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma.
This appeal arises from ongoing litigation concerning amendment 100 to the Arkansas Constitution, which provides for the issuance of the Pope County casino license. This third iteration of appeals concerns the Arkansas Racing Commission's ("ARC's") decision to award the license to Cherokee Nation Businesses, LLC ("CNB"), and Legends Resort and Casino, LLC ("Legends"). Gulfside Casino Partnership ("Gulfside") challenged that the ARC's action was ultra vires as it was issued in violation of the clear language of amendment 100 and therefore unconstitutional. The circuit court agreed and held that the license so issued was a "legal nullity, void and of no effect." For the reasons below, we affirm.
Amendment 100 to the Arkansas Constitution, passed in November 2019, tasked the ARC with awarding casino gaming licenses, including one to a casino applicant for operation of a casino in Pope County, Arkansas. The ARC adopted rules pursuant to its authority in amendment 100 and Ark. Code Ann. § 23-117-101 (Repl. 2015), and established an application period that ran from May 1 through May 30, 2019. Five entities applied, including Gulfside, CNB, and appellee Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma ("Choctaw").[1] The ARC denied all five applications on June 12, 2019, for lack of requisite support from county officials. Gulfside appealed its denial, arguing its application included a valid letter of support as required by amendment 100. The circuit court agreed and remanded the matter to the ARC on March 24, 2020, to consider the merit of Gulfside's application. CNB appealed the circuit court's decision in favor of Gulfside to this court.
Meanwhile, on May 7, 2020, the ARC accepted Legends' application as an "amended application" of CNB for "good cause shown." The ARC then met to consider the applications of Gulfside and Legends on June 18, 2020, and awarded the license to Gulfside. Legends requested a hearing, challenging the ARC's decision to grant the license to Gulfside. Gulfside submitted a letter notifying the ARC of its challenge to Legends' status as a qualified applicant because it had "no gaming experience." The ARC held a hearing to consider these issues on June 30, 2020, and denied both Legends' and Gulfside's challenges. The ARC issued the license to Gulfside on July 31, 2020. Notwithstanding having been awarded the license, Gulfside then appealed the ARC's decision that Legends was a qualified applicant to the circuit court on March 9, 2021.
On October 21, 2021, this court decided Cherokee Nation Businesses, LLC v. Gulfside Casino Partnership, 2021 Ark. 183, 632 S.W.3d 284 (CNB II). We reversed the circuit court's decision, which found that Gulfside was a qualified applicant because amendment 100 requires a letter of support from the county judge in office at the time of the application period rather than from the prior county judge. As a result, the ARC met on November 12, 2021, voided the license to Gulfside, and awarded the license to both Legends and CNB.
Gulfside then amended its original circuit court petition on December 28, 2021, and added CNB as a party. It sought declaratory judgment that the actions by the ARC in awarding the license to Legends and CNB were unconstitutional and constituted an ultra vires act. It also alleged the ARC violated the Administrative Procedure Act.
The circuit court granted Gulfside's motion for summary judgment, finding in part that (1) both Gulfside and Choctaw had standing to bring the appeal of the ARC decision; (2) that CNB and Legends are two separate and distinct legal entities; (3) the ARC acted ultra vires in violation of amendment 100 when it issued the Pope County license to CNB because CNB had no pending application with the ARC and thus was not a "qualified applicant"; and (4) the casino license issued by the ARC jointly to CNB and Legends was an ultra vires action as it was issued unconstitutionally and in violation of the clear and unambiguous language of amendment 100, which specifically allows for a single applicant. Therefore, the circuit court held such license to be "a legal nullity, void and of no effect." The ARC, CNB, and Legends filed this appeal. Gulfside and Choctaw each filed responses.
Appellants CNB, Legends, and the ARC appeal from the circuit court's order that granted appellee Gulfside's motion for summary judgment. The circuit court's grant of summary judgment was a final order. See, e.g., Harold Ives Trucking Co. v. Pro Transp., Inc., 341 Ark. 735, 737-38, 19 S.W.3d 600, 602-03 (2000); see also Ark. R. App. P. -Civ. 2(a)(1). Because this is an appeal from a final order and involves the interpretation of amendment 100 to the Arkansas Constitution, we have jurisdiction. Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 1-2(a)(1).
This court has been asked to determine the following on appeal: (1) whether the circuit court and the appellate court have subject-matter jurisdiction; (2) whether Gulfside and Choctaw have standing to challenge the issuance of the Pope County casino license by the ARC; and (3) whether the ARC's decision to issue the license jointly to Legends and CNB was an ultra vires act and unconstitutionally issued in violation of amendment 100 to the Arkansas Constitution.
The appeal arises from the circuit court's granting of Gulfside's motion for summary judgment. "Summary judgement may be granted only when there are no genuine issues of material fact to be litigated, and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Cannady v. St. Vincent Infirmary Med. Ctr., 2012 Ark. 369, at 3, 423 S.W.3d 548, 550. "Ordinarily, upon reviewing a circuit court's decision on a summary judgment motion, we would examine the record to determine if genuine issues of material fact exist." May v. Akers-Lang, 2012 Ark. 7, at 6, 386 S.W.3d 378, 382. In a case where both parties agree on the facts, we simply determine whether the appellee was entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. Hobbs v. Jones, 2012 Ark. 293, 412 S.W.3d 844. State v. Cassell, 2013 Ark. 221, at 4-5, 427 S.W.3d 663, 666 (cleaned up).
The issues before us require interpretation of amendment 100. This court reviews a circuit court's interpretation of a constitutional provision de novo. See City of Fayetteville v. Washington Cty., 369 Ark. 455, 255 S.W.3d 844 (2007). Language of a constitutional provision that is plain and unambiguous must be given its obvious and common meaning. Id. Neither rules of construction nor rules of interpretation may be used to defeat the clear and certain meaning of a constitutional provision. Id. Furthermore, when engaging in constitutional construction and interpretation, this court looks to the history of the constitutional provision. See Foster v Jefferson Cty. Quorum Ct., 321 Ark. 105, 901 S.W.2d 809 (1995). The Arkansas Constitution must be considered as a whole, and every provision must be read in light of other provisions relating to the same subject matter. Gatzke v. Weiss, 375 Ark. 207, 210-11, 289 S.W.3d 455, 458 (2008).
As a fundamental matter, the court turns first to appellants' argument that the circuit court and the appellate court do not have subject-matter jurisdiction. "Subject-matter jurisdiction implicates a court's authority to hear and decide a particular type of case." Osage Creek Cultivation, LLC v. Ark. Dep't of Fin. & Admin., 2023 Ark. 47, at 6-7, 660 S.W.3d 843, 847 (citing Ark. Dep't of Fin. & Admin. v. Naturalis Health, LLC, 2018 Ark. 224, at 6, 549 S.W.3d 901, 906). A court's subject-matter jurisdiction comes from the Arkansas Constitution or constitutionally authorized statutes or court rules. Id. We review the pleadings to make a de novo determination whether a court has subject-matter jurisdiction. Tripcony v. Ark. Sch. for the Deaf, 2012 Ark. 188, at 4, 403 S.W.3d 559, 561.
Gulfside's complaint seeks relief under the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act, Ark. Code Ann. §§ 16-111-101 et seq. (Repl. 2016 &Supp. 2023). We recently held that circuit courts have subject-matter jurisdiction for declaratory judgment claims when the complaint alleges the State has acted illegally, unconstitutionally, or ultra vires. Osage Creek Cultivation, 2023 Ark. 47, at 6-7, 660 S.W.3d at 847.[2]
Gulfside specifically pled that the ARC acted ultra vires and outside its constitutional authority in (1) issuing the Pope County casino gaming license to...
To continue reading
Request your trial