## Facts

- Wisconsin entered tribal-state gaming compacts in 1992 permitting certain class III games, including blackjack and specified slot machines.
- In 1993, Wisconsin voters amended Wis. Const. art. IV, § 24 to broadly restrict authorization of gambling, subject to narrow exceptions, reflecting a policy against gambling expansion.
- In 2003, the Governor negotiated amendments to an existing compact with the Forest County Potawatomi Community.
- The amendments authorized additional casino-style class III games not previously permitted under the 1992 compact, including roulette, craps, poker, and keno.
- The amendments also included duration and renewal provisions that, as a practical matter, could bind the state for very long terms and constrain future officials.
- Legislative leaders and a legislative committee filed an original action seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, alleging the Governor exceeded his authority and violated separation-of-powers limits by expanding gambling and committing the state to quasi-perpetual obligations.

## Issues

1. Whether, after the 1993 amendment to Wis. Const. art. IV, § 24, the Governor may approve compact amendments authorizing new forms of class III gambling not previously permitted under pre-1993 compacts.
2. Whether the Governor’s execution of such amendments constitutes an exercise of legislative power in violation of separation-of-powers principles.
3. Whether the Governor may bind the state to compact provisions that are perpetual or effectively perpetual in duration.

## Decision

- The Wisconsin Supreme Court, in an opinion by Justice Prosser, granted relief in part.
- The court declared invalid those portions of the 2003 compact amendments that authorized new casino-style class III games not permitted under the pre-1993 compact framework.
- The court upheld the Governor’s authority to negotiate and execute amendments that continue or renew the forms of gambling lawfully in place before the 1993 constitutional amendment.
- The court invalidated compact terms that would bind the state through perpetual or quasi-perpetual duration mechanisms beyond the Governor’s lawful contracting authority.

## Legal Principles

- Wis. Const. art. IV, § 24 (as amended in 1993) functions as a broad constitutional limitation on state authorization of gambling beyond specified exceptions and constrains executive action taken under state-law authority.
- The Governor’s authority to negotiate and sign tribal-state gaming compacts is derivative of state law and cannot be used to accomplish what the constitution bars the legislature from authorizing.
- Under IGRA, state obligations to negotiate operate within the bounds of what forms of gaming are “permitted” under state constitutional and statutory law; federal law does not expand state constitutional authorization.
- Gambling forms validly permitted before the 1993 amendment may be maintained or renewed, but the state may not materially expand class III gaming through compact amendments.
- Executive agreements may not bind the state to perpetual or quasi-perpetual commitments that surrender ongoing governmental control over core policy choices, consistent with separation-of-powers limits.

## Conclusion

The court held that Wisconsin’s governor may maintain pre-1993 tribal gaming arrangements through compact renewals, but lacks authority to expand class III gambling beyond the pre-amendment baseline or to bind the state to perpetual or effectively perpetual compact terms.


Panzer v. Doyle, 680 N.W.2d 666 (Wis. 2004)