## Facts

- Wisconsin entered tribal-state gaming compacts with several tribes in 1991–92 under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA), authorizing specified casino gaming.
- In 1993, Wisconsin voters amended Article IV, § 24 of the Wisconsin Constitution to restrict legislative authorization of gambling, subject to limited exceptions.
- In the early 2000s, the Governor negotiated compact extensions and amendments with tribes that continued the compacts’ terms and, according to Dairyland, expanded casino gaming beyond what the original compacts permitted.
- Dairyland Greyhound Park, a non-tribal pari-mutuel track operator, sued the Governor and the Department of Administration Secretary for declaratory and injunctive relief, alleging the post-1993 compact changes violated Article IV, § 24 and exceeded executive authority.
- The circuit court granted summary judgment to the State; the court of appeals certified questions to the Wisconsin Supreme Court.

## Issues

1. Whether the 1993 amendment to Article IV, § 24 retroactively invalidated or otherwise affected the validity of the pre-1993 tribal gaming compacts.
2. Whether, after the 1993 amendment, the Governor may extend the duration of pre-1993 compacts and/or amend them to permit additional or broader casino gaming.
3. Whether limiting post-1993 compact amendments under the Wisconsin Constitution is barred by IGRA preemption or constitutes an unconstitutional impairment of contract.

## Decision

- The Wisconsin Supreme Court held that the 1993 amendment did not retroactively void or invalidate the 1991–92 compacts.
- The Court held the Governor may extend the duration of pre-1993 compacts as a continuation in time of previously authorized gaming.
- The Court held the Governor may not, through post-1993 amendments, authorize new or materially expanded forms of gambling prohibited by Article IV, § 24.
- The Court held the Governor’s IGRA negotiation authority is limited by the Wisconsin Constitution and does not permit authorizing constitutionally forbidden gambling.
- The Court rejected arguments that enforcing the constitutional limitation unlawfully impaired the compacts or was preempted by IGRA.
- The Court did not invalidate the compacts wholesale; it treated invalid only those post-1993 provisions that expanded gaming beyond what was permissible, and remanded for proceedings consistent with that framework.

## Legal Principles

- Constitutional amendments restricting gambling are not applied retroactively absent clear constitutional text indicating retroactive effect.
- Extending the term of a preexisting, lawfully authorized compact is distinct from authorizing new gambling; a time extension may be valid even when new gambling authorizations are not.
- The executive’s authority to negotiate tribal gaming compacts under IGRA and state law remains subject to state constitutional limits; executive action cannot create gambling authorizations the constitution withholds.
- IGRA provides a negotiation framework but does not compel a state to consent to gaming that state law or the state constitution forbids.
- The State cannot contract away the people’s power to alter constitutional limits; enforcing later-adopted constitutional restrictions on gambling does not, by itself, create an unconstitutional impairment of contract.

## Conclusion

The court preserved the validity of Wisconsin’s pre-1993 tribal gaming compacts and allowed their time extensions, but held that post-1993 amendments expanding casino gaming beyond what was previously authorized violate Article IV, § 24 and are unenforceable, with the case remanded to apply that distinction to the challenged provisions.


Dairyland Greyhound Park, Inc. v. Doyle, 295 Wis. 2d 1, 719 N.W.2d 408 (Wis. 2006)