close
close

Association-anemone

Bite-sized brilliance in every update

Federal judge denies request to block action to revoke Arkansas casino license
asane

Federal judge denies request to block action to revoke Arkansas casino license

LITTLE ROCK, Arkansas — A federal judge has denied an effort to temporarily block a constitutional amendment approved by Arkansas voters last week that revokes the state’s license for a planned casino.

Judge D. Price Marshall Jr. late Tuesday denied Cherokee Nation Entertainment’s request for a temporary restraining order against the amendment, which took effect Wednesday. The amendment revokes the state’s license to Cherokee Nation Entertainment for a casino in Pope County.

Cherokee Nation Entertainment filed a lawsuit in federal court, claiming the measure approved by voters on Nov. 5 violates its constitutional rights.

“We look forward to presenting the merits of our case to the court as the legal process moves forward,” Cherokee Nation Businesses spokeswoman Allison Burum said in a statement.

Attorney General Tim Griffin said he appreciated the ruling and would “continue to vigorously defend” the state in the case.

Pope County was one of four sites where casinos were allowed to be built under a constitutional amendment that voters approved in 2018. Casinos have already been established in the other three locations.

The lawsuit is part of a costly battle between the Cherokee Nation and the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma, which had spent at least $30 million campaigning for the ballot measure. The state Supreme Court last month rejected a lawsuit by the Cherokee Nation that sought to disqualify the measure from the ballot. The Choctaw Nation operates a casino near the Arkansas border.

“As Issue 2 took effect today as Amendment 104, we have confidence in the validity of Amendment 104 and the judicial process for a fair outcome for Arkansas voters,” said Local Voters in Charge, the group that lobbied for the casino measure. , said in a statement.

Marshall said he would set a trial date in the case on the constitutionality of the measure in a later order.