Narragansett Indian Tribe v. State

• Decision Date: 04 March 2015
• Docket Number: No. 2012–322–Appeal.,2012–322–Appeal.
• Citation: 110 A.3d 1160
• Parties: NARRAGANSETT INDIAN TRIBE v. STATE of Rhode Island and UTGR, Inc. d/b/a Twin River and Newport Grand, LLC (Intervenors).
• Court: Rhode Island Supreme Court

110 A.3d 1160

NARRAGANSETT INDIAN TRIBE

v.STATE of Rhode Island and UTGR, Inc. d/b/a Twin River and Newport Grand, LLC (Intervenors).

No. 2012–322–Appeal.

Supreme Court of Rhode Island.

March 4, 2015.

William P. Devereaux, Esq., Providence, for Plaintiff.

Michael W. Field, Department of Attorney General, Mitchell R. Edwards, Esq., Providence, for Defendant.

Present: SUTTELL, C.J., FLAHERTY, ROBINSON, and INDEGLIA, JJ.

OPINION

Justice INDEGLIA, for the Court.

The plaintiff, the Narragansett Indian Tribe (Tribe), appeals from the entry of partial summary judgment in the Superior Court in favor of the defendant, the State of Rhode Island (state), and the intervenor defendant, UTGR, Inc. d/b/a Twin River (UTGR), finding that the 2011 Casino Act, G.L. 1956 chapter 61.2 of title 42 (Casino Act or the act) is not facially unconstitutional. For the reasons set forth in this opinion, we affirm the judgment of the Superior Court.

IFacts and Travel

Much of the background of the lengthy disputes between the state and the Tribe as it pertains to gambling in Rhode Island is succinctly summarized in our previous opinion in this case. See Narragansett Indian Tribe v. State, 81 A.3d 1106, 1107–09 (R.I.2014) (Tribe I ). Accordingly, here, we summarize only the pertinent facts necessary to the disposition of this appeal.

The present appeal concerns only the facial constitutionality of the Casino Act.¹ On September 28, 2011, the Tribe filed a complaint against the state seeking a declaration that the Casino Act is unconstitutional in violation of article 6, section 15 of the Rhode Island Constitution, which provides, in relevant part, that “[a]ll lotteries shall be prohibited in the state except lotteries operated by the state * * * and all shall be subject to the prescription and regulation of the general assembly.” Additionally, the Tribe asserted that the Casino Act was unconstitutionally vague and in violation of the non-delegation doctrine embodied in sections 1 and 2 of article 6 of the Rhode Island Constitution. Subsequently, UTGR was permitted to intervene as a defendant.

A hearing before the Washington County Superior Court on the parties' cross-motions for partial summary judgment was held on May 30, 2012. The hearing justice later issued a written decision, which found that, although the Tribe had standing, it nonetheless had failed to meet its burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the Casino Act is facially unconstitutional.

The Tribe timely appealed the decision on the merits, and the state timely cross-appealed the determination that the Tribe had standing. This Court declined to consolidate the two appeals, and directed the parties to first address the issue of standing. On January 10, 2014, we issued an opinion affirming the hearing justice's decision that the Tribe had standing. Tribe I, 81 A.3d at 1111. However, we relied on different reasons from those relied on by the hearing justice. Id. Rather than invoking the public interest exception to standing, we held that the Tribe had “demonstrated an injury in fact” sufficient to maintain standing. Id.

Having cleared the standing hurdle, we proceed to address the merits of the Tribe's challenge.

IIStandard of Review

It is well settled that “[t]his Court reviews a lower court's grant of a motion for summary judgment de novo, ‘employing the same standards and rules used by the hearing justice.’ ” Generation Realty, LLC v. Catanzaro, 21 A.3d 253, 258 (R.I.2011) (quoting Planned Environments Management Corp. v. Robert, 966 A.2d 117, 121 (R.I.2009) ). “In addition, since we have before us a pure statutory issue,” our review is de novo. Planned Environments Management Corp., 966 A.2d at 121.

One who challenges the constitutionality of a statute bears the burden of “prov[ing] beyond a reasonable doubt that the act violates a specific provision of the [Rhode Island] [C]onstitution * * *.” Oden v. Schwartz, 71 A.3d 438, 456 (R.I.2013) (quoting Mackie v. State, 936 A.2d 588, 595 (R.I.2007) ). Additionally, we note “that legislative enactments of the General Assembly are presumed to be valid and constitutional.” State v. Faria, 947 A.2d 863, 867 (R.I.2008) (quoting Newport Court Club Associates v. Town Council of Middletown, 800 A.2d 405, 409 (R.I.2002) ). “As such, we ‘exercise [ ] the greatest possible caution’ in reviewing a challenge to a statute's constitutionality.” Oden, 71 A.3d at 456 (quoting Mackie, 936 A.2d at 595). “Indeed, ‘[t]his [C]ourt will attach every reasonable intendment in favor of * * * constitutionality in order to preserve the statute.’ ” State ex rel. City of Providence v. Auger, 44 A.3d 1218, 1226 (R.I.2012) (quoting Gem Plumbing & Heating Co. v. Rossi, 867 A.2d 796, 808 (R.I.2005) ). Therefore, “[t]o be deemed unconstitutional, a statute must palpably and unmistakably be characterized as an excess of legislative power.” Faria , 947 A.2d at 867 (quoting Cherenzia v. Lynch, 847 A.2d 818, 822 (R.I.2004) ).

IIIDiscussion

The present appeal concerns only the Tribe's facial challenge to the constitutionality of the Casino Act under the Rhode Island Constitution. At the outset, we recognize that “[t]he doctrine surrounding the ‘facial’ and ‘as applied’ forms of judicial review is ‘currently a subject of hot debate, both in the [United States] Supreme Court and among commentators.’ ” United States v. Jones, 689 F.3d 696, 704 (7th Cir.2012) (quoting Richard H. Fallon, Jr., Fact and Fiction About Facial Challenges, 99 Calif. L. Rev. 915, 917 (2011) ). Nonetheless, the current consensus appears to be that “facial challenges are generally equated with claims of unconstitutionality in toto,” Gillian E. Metzger, Facial and As–Applied Challenges Under the Roberts Court, 36 Fordham Urb. L.J. 773, 786 (2009), whereas, “[a]s-applied challenges are then treated as the residual, although ostensibly preferred and larger, category.” Fallon, 99 Calif. L. Rev. at 923. As the name suggests, as-applied challenges evaluate the constitutionality of a statute “as applied to the particular facts at issue.” Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, 561 U.S. 1, 18, 130 S.Ct. 2705, 177 L.Ed.2d 355 (2010).

The United States Supreme Court has fairly recently stated that a key distinction between facial and as-applied challenges essentially “goes to the breadth of the remedy employed by the Court.” Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310, 331, 130 S.Ct. 876, 175 L.Ed.2d 753 (2010). In addition, it has been suggested that “the availability of facial challenges varies on a doctrine-by-doctrine basis and is a function of the applicable substantive tests of constitutional validity.” Richard H. Fallon, Jr., As–Applied and Facial Challenges and Third–Party Standing, 113 Harv. L. Rev. 1321, 1324 (2000) ; accord Marc E. Isserles, Overcoming Overbreadth: Facial Challenges and the Valid Rule Requirement, 48 Am. U.L. Rev. 359, 378 (1998) ; see also United States v. Stevens, 559 U.S. 460, 472–73, 130 S.Ct. 1577, 176 L.Ed.2d 435 (2010) ; Washington State Grange v. Washington State Republican Party, 552 U.S. 442, 449, 128 S.Ct. 1184, 170 L.Ed.2d 151 (2008) ; Sabri v. United States, 541 U.S. 600, 609–10, 124 S.Ct. 1941, 158 L.Ed.2d 891 (2004).

At the current stage,² the Tribe's facial challenge is roughly analogous in form to what has been described as a “valid rule facial challenge,” which “is a challenge to a statute based on a constitutional infirmity evident in the written words of the statute itself.” Isserles, 48 Am. U.L. Rev. at 428. Accordingly, we shall assess, as written, the Casino Act's constitutionality against the infirmities alleged by the Tribe.

The Tribe argues that the Casino Act must be invalidated because it is unconstitutionally vague or because it otherwise violates the non-delegation doctrine enunciated in article 6, sections 1 and 2 of the Rhode Island Constitution. We note, however, that there is no allegation that the Casino Act infringes upon First Amendment or other fundamental rights.

AVagueness

To the extent that a sufficient basis for invalidating the Casino Act under the vagueness doctrine³ has been articulated, at the current stage of these proceedings, we may succinctly dispose of this argument.

The United States Supreme Court has stated that “[v]agueness challenges to statutes not threatening First Amendment interests are examined in light of the facts of the case at hand; the statute is judged on an as-applied basis.” Maynard v. Cartwright, 486 U.S. 356, 361, 108 S.Ct. 1853, 100 L.Ed.2d 372 (1988) ; see Humanitarian Law Project, 561 U.S. at 18, 130 S.Ct. 2705 (“We consider whether a statute is vague as applied to the particular facts at issue.”); Chapman v. United States, 500 U.S. 453, 467, 111 S.Ct. 1919, 114 L.Ed.2d 524 (1991) (“First Amendment freedoms are not infringed by [the statute], so the vagueness claim must be evaluated as the statute is applied to the facts of this case.”). Accordingly, the Casino Act must be evaluated on an as-applied basis when that challenge is considered by the Superior Court.

BNon-delegation

We begin with the recognition that “the delegation of legislative functions is not a per se unconstitutional action.” Milardo v. Coastal Resources Management Council of Rhode Island, 434 A.2d 266, 270–71 (R.I.1981) ; see Davis v. Wood, 427 A.2d 332, 335 (R.I.1981) (“As a practical matter, the [non-delegation] doctrine has not prohibited the delegation of legislative power.”). Nonetheless, we are mindful that “merely calling a casino ‘state operated’ does not make it so for purposes of fulfilling the very explicit terms of our Constitution.” In re Advisory Opinion to the House of Representatives (Casino II), 885 A.2d 698, 707 n. 8 (R.I.2005). However, we are also cognizant of our role in evaluating the constitutionality of legislation. In performing this task, “if two alternate interpretations are possible, we shall favor that which presents no potential constitutional difficulties.” Mosby v. Devine, 851 A.2d 1031, 1045 (R.I.2004) (quoti...