The lawsuit, filed in the US District Court for the District of Colorado last year, centres on tribal rights to operate sports betting in the state.

Specifically, it focuses on whether the tribes can lawfully accept online sports betting wagers from individuals located anywhere within the state, outside the boundaries of tribal lands, without being subject to Colorado’s regulatory framework.

Gov. Polis argued in his request for dismissal that the lawsuit should be dismissed, due to lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a legal claim.

The central contention is that attempts by the tribes to accept sports bets from outside tribal lands would intrude upon the state’s sovereign authority to regulate gaming within its jurisdiction, and would violate established precedent under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA).

The motion to dismiss is grounded in several legal arguments.

First, the state asserts that it is immune from the lawsuit under the Eleventh Amendment, which bars suits against states by private parties — including Indian tribes — in federal court unless a valid waiver or exception applies.

The defendants contend that the tribes have not identified any ongoing action by state officials that would justify an injunction under the narrow Ex parte Young exception, which allows for federal court intervention only to stop ongoing violations of federal law.

The motion also emphasises that the defendants have not initiated any enforcement action against the tribes, nor are they currently doing so.

On the contrary, Colorado claims it has consistently engaged in dialogue with the tribes to avoid legal conflicts and has expressed its legal position for years.

Location, location, location

The State also notes that neither Tribe currently accepts bets from outside its reservation.

The governor and the other defendants further argue that the IGRA only authorises gaming that occurs “on Indian lands,” and that online wagers placed by individuals off-reservation — even if processed by servers located on tribal land — do not meet this requirement.

They cite the US Supreme Court’s decision in Michigan v. Bay Mills Indian Community, which held that the IGRA’s regulatory scope is limited to tribal land.

They also reference the Tenth Circuit’s interpretation in Navajo Nation v. Dalley, which clarified that gaming activity is defined by where the wager is placed, not where it is received.

Additionally, the defendants highlighted that Colorado law does not deem a bet to occur where the receiving server is located.

Instead, state law and formal opinions from the Attorney General consider a bet to be placed where the bettor is located.

Because the bets at issue would originate off-reservation, the state maintains that they fall under its jurisdiction and licensing requirements, including tax obligations.

The motion also addresses the tribes’ reliance on a 2023 DC Circuit decision (West Flagler Associates v. Haaland), which upheld a compact between the State of Florida and the Seminole Tribe that “deemed” online wagers to occur on tribal land.

The Colorado defendants argue that, unlike Florida, Colorado has not enacted any law or entered into any agreement with its tribes that would allow for such legal standing.

They further state that the existing 1995 compacts with the tribes predate the rise of internet gaming and only apply to gaming physically conducted within tribal facilities.

Governor hopes to dismiss with prejudice

In the governor’s view, the Tribes are seeking to unilaterally expand their gaming rights beyond what is allowed under existing compacts or the IGRA.

The motion also notes that if the tribes wanted to modify the compacts to allow remote wagering statewide, they would need to negotiate such terms with the state and obtain legislative approval, neither of which has occurred.

The state also argues that the tribes’ claims are barred by the statute of limitations.

They assert that the tribes were aware of the State’s position as early as April 2020 and failed to file their lawsuit within the applicable two- or three-year limitations periods.

The defendants reference prior communications, including letters from the former Gaming Director and meetings with tribal representatives, which they claim provided clear notice of the state’s legal stance.

Gov. Polis’ motion asks the court to dismiss the case with prejudice, asserting that any amendment by the tribes would be futile because their claims are both legally deficient and untimely.