Although the launch of online casinos in Maine is still several weeks away, it has already sparked a major legal battle.
The Wabanaki Nations of Maine have successfully secured the right to defend a controversial new law that grants them exclusive iGaming rights. It comes as a result of a federal judge's ruling allowing them to intervene in a lawsuit challenging LD 1164—a law that could reshape the economic landscape for Maine's four federally recognized tribes.
To better understand the situation, let's walk through Maine's new online casino law, the concerns surrounding it, and the legal battle that is about to ensue.
This comes as the state moves to ban sweepstakes casinos as well.
Overview of LD 1164
LD 1164, known as "An Act to Create Economic Opportunity for the Wabanaki Nations Through Internet Gaming," was allowed to become law without signature by Maine Governor Janet Mills in January 2026. The legislation grants Maine’s four Wabanaki Nations—the Passamaquoddy Tribe, Penobscot Nation, Houlton Band of Maliseet Indians, and the Mi’kmaq Nation—the exclusive right to offer internet gaming across the entire state.
According to the bill text and official descriptions, "internet gaming" includes:
- Card games (e.g., blackjack, poker, baccarat)
- Dice games (e.g., craps)
- Other games of chance approved by the state's Gambling Control Unit, such as online slots and virtual table games
These are delivered through mobile apps or digital platforms, embodying the essence of online casinos.
The law does not include:
- Online sports betting, which was legalized earlier in 2022, operates under tribal exclusivity with partners like DraftKings and Caesars
- Retail (in-person) casinos or slot machines at physical locations
In short, this law legalizes and regulates online casino-style gambling in Maine for the first time, but restricts its operation to tribal entities. Proponents argue that the law will bolster economic self-sufficiency for tribal communities by leveraging growth in online casino games such as slots, poker, and table games.
The Lawsuit Against LD 1164
Despite its potential benefits, the law faces strong opposition from commercial gaming entities. Oxford Casino Hotel, owned by Churchill Downs Incorporated (known for the Kentucky Derby), filed a federal lawsuit, arguing that the law creates an unlawful "race-based monopoly" that violates the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
The Lawsuit Context
- Churchill Downs, through its Oxford Casino, challenges the law for creating a tribal-only monopoly in the new online casino market.
- They argue for the right to compete and offer their own iGaming platform, claiming the exclusivity is unconstitutional.
If the law withstands the lawsuit and goes into effect (expected sometime after the legislative session ends in mid-April 2026), Maine residents would be able to play regulated online casino games such as slots, blackjack, poker, roulette, and other table games—all under state oversight, with responsible gambling measures, age restrictions, and an 18% tax on revenue going to the state and tribes.
According to Oxford Casino, the law discriminates against non-tribal operators who stand to lose significant revenue. Churchill Downs criticizes the tribal-exclusive framework as unfair and detrimental to the broader gaming market.
The Tribes' Legal Battle
Maine's tribal gaming scenario is intricate due to the 1980 Maine Indian Claims Settlement Act, which treats the Wabanaki Nations similarly to municipalities under state law. This historic agreement limits the tribes' ability to automatically benefit from federal gaming expansions unless explicitly stated otherwise. The iGaming law represents a state-level effort to enhance tribal economic opportunities while navigating these unique limitations.
The recent legal development allows the Wabanaki Nations to actively defend their newly granted rights.
Tribal attorneys assert that the law is based on their unique political and sovereign status rather than race, highlighting the importance of safeguarding tribal sovereignty and economic opportunities from legal challenges.
Economic and Legal Implications
For the Wabanaki Nations, iGaming offers a promising revenue stream to fund vital community programs.
On the other hand, commercial operators like Oxford Casino see the legislation as a threat to their business in an increasingly competitive market. The case has broader implications for the balance between tribal and commercial gaming, particularly in regions with constraints on tribal sovereignty.
As the legal proceedings unfold, the Wabanaki Nations' involvement in the case strengthens their position. Legal outcomes could set important precedents for how states negotiate commercial interests and tribal rights—especially in jurisdictions with restricted sovereignty. As stakeholders in Maine and beyond watch closely, the outcome of this case promises to influence the trajectory of tribal gaming rights across the nation.
