The Alabama Supreme Court has ruled that three casinos—VictoryLand Casino, White Hall Entertainment and Southern Star Entertainment—must cease operating electronic bingo machines. This is part of a decade-long legal saga in the state.
The casinos were called “a public nuisance,” in the order. The high court ordered Lowndes and Macon County circuit courts to issue injunctions to shut the operations within 30 days of the order.
Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall commented on the ruling, declaring that electronic bingo is “a misnomer used by the casinos to mean ‘video-slot-machine gambling.’ ”
The AG added, “The Alabama Supreme Court’s opinion makes clear what my office has maintained from the start: these gambling enterprises are not only patently illegal under Alabama law, but also a menace to public health, morals, safety, and welfare.” Marshall said. “Today’s decision will forbid the Southern Star, White Hall, and VictoryLand casinos from offering their slot-machine gambling to the public.”
Marshall’s office initially requested that the counties order the casinos closed, but resorted to the state court in 2017 after local law enforcement declined to prosecute them. The sheriff of Lowndes County, according to the court, “noted the lack of any public complaint regarding the Lowndes County defendants’ operations, his alleged inability — due to a purported lack of both ‘manpower’ and funding — to undertake a related investigation.” The sheriff also claimed he had a conflict of interest to prosecute the illegal bingo.
The Supreme Court first ruled in 2016 that electronic bingo was not protected under statutes that allowed for charitable bingo. In its latest ruling it also criticized “the failure of some local law-enforcement officials in this State to enforce the anti-gambling laws of this State they are sworn to uphold.”
Lawyers for the Macan County casinos never argued the legality of their operations, but instead tried to show that the state couldn’t prove they were causing irreparable harm. They also presented testimony that the contributions and tax revenue from proceeds helped support the “health, safety, and welfare of Macon County residents.”
The court didn’t accept this argument, concluding, “The defendants have no right to engage in, and, thus, cannot be harmed by being enjoined from continuing in, an illegal enterprise.”
