Iowa Supreme Court Upholds Commission Decision

The Iowa Supreme Court unanimously ruled the Iowa Racing and Gaming Commission may oppose a gaming license to a casino that could cannibalize others. The case, which affirms commission and district court decisions, involved the IRCG's denial of a license to the proposed Cedar Crossing Casino in Cedar Rapids in 2013.

In a unanimous ruling, the Iowa Supreme Court said the Iowa Racing and Gaming Commission may refuse a gambling license to a casino it believes may cannibalize other operations. The decision affirms Sixth Judicial District Judge Ian Thornhill’s ruling in a lawsuit against the IRCG over a 2013 gambling license application for the proposed Cedar Crossing Casino in downtown Cedar Rapids. The commission denied two casino proposals after a market analysis showed a Cedar Rapids casino would take existing casinos’ profits.

In 2015, former Linn County prosecutor Gene Kopecky sued, contending the gaming commission overstepped its authority by considering the economic impact on one casino when deciding whether to approve another license. The commission said Iowa’s administrative rules “allow and/or require” it to review the effect on one casino when considering the bid of another. But Kopecky said Iowa gaming law directs the commission to base its decision on what’s in the best interest of the state, and that an additional casino would create hundreds of jobs and generate millions of dollars in revenue.

Kopecky appealed to the Sixth Judicial District Court, which affirmed the commission’s decision. The Supreme Court’s recent opinion agrees with the IRCG and Thornhill. Justice David Wiggins, writing the court’s opinion, stated, “In our review of chapter 99F, we find it replete with provisions indicating the legislature’s intent that the commission can consider the economic effect of a new gaming operation on existing gaming facilities when deciding whether to issue a new gaming license. In order to ensure the continued economic development of our state, the legislature and the commission deem it important to make sure an existing gambling facility remains viable when the commission issues a new license.”

Kopecky said he disagreed with the high court’s decision. “I just think it’s contrary to the statute and does not really respect the citizens of the state. They are ignoring the interests of the people,” he said.

Currently the commission is considering three new casino proposals for a gambling license, including Cedar Crossing on the River. A decision is not expected before fall.