A lawsuit filed last week by Churchill Downs-owned Oxford Casino Hotel argues that Maine’s newly enacted online casino law will lead to significant job losses and economic harm while violating constitutional equal protection principles.

The suit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maine against the Maine Gambling Control Unit (MGCU), challenges legislation that legalised online casino gaming, or iCasino, while granting exclusive operating rights to the state’s four federally recognised Wabanaki Nations. The law took effect earlier this month after Governor Janet Mills allowed it to become law without her signature.

According to the complaint, the expansion of online casino gaming under a tribal-exclusive framework will “cannibalise” revenue from Maine’s two brick-and-mortar casinos, Oxford Casino Hotel and Hollywood Casino Hotel & Raceway Bangor. The lawsuit estimates the state could lose 378 jobs, $22 million in labour income and approximately $60 million in additional economic activity as a result of the policy shift.

“All these harms are the direct consequence of a race-and-geography-based monopoly,” the lawsuit states, arguing that the law violates both the U.S. and Maine constitutions by excluding non-tribal commercial operators from participation. Oxford Casino is seeking a court ruling declaring the law unconstitutional.

The statute grants the Wabanaki Nations exclusive rights to offer iCasino statewide, building on a similar framework that already gives the tribes exclusivity over online sports betting through partnerships with Caesars and DraftKings. MGCU Executive Director Milton Champion, who is named in the lawsuit, said Thursday that he had not yet received formal notice of the filing and declined to comment on pending litigation.

Broader opposition to online casino expansion

Churchill Downs is a founding member of the National Association Against iGaming (NAAiG), a trade group that campaigns nationally against online casino expansion. While the company has opposed iCasino outright, it acknowledged in its lawsuit that if Maine is to permit online casino gaming, it wants the opportunity to compete in a regulated market.

Both Oxford Casino and Penn Entertainment’s Hollywood Casino testified against the tribal iCasino legislation during the legislative process. Their opposition focused on concerns that tribal exclusivity would undermine existing commercial casino operations and reduce employment at land-based facilities.

Resistance also came from within state government. Governor Mills’s office previously expressed opposition to online casino expansion, and Maine Gambling Control Board Chairman Steve Silver testified against the proposal, calling it “ill-advised.” Despite that opposition, Mills allowed the bill to take effect this year, citing the goal of improving economic conditions for the Wabanaki Nations. Her decision marked a shift from her earlier stance on iCasino.

All these harms are the direct consequence of a race-and-geography-based monopoly.

Political and legal fallout

Following the law’s passage, NAAiG criticised Mills’s decision and announced plans to pursue a People’s Veto initiative aimed at overturning the legislation. The group declined further comment this week but issued a statement arguing that the law disregarded public opposition and regulatory warnings.

“This decision represents a clear break from the governor’s previously stated position and disregards overwhelming public opposition, expert warnings from her own regulators and a proven gaming framework that has delivered meaningful benefits to Maine communities and tribal nations for more than a decade,” the statement said.

The group emphasised that its opposition is not rooted in excluding tribal governments from gaming revenues, noting that the tribes already benefit from the state’s existing casino tax structure. Instead, NAAiG said it is seeking to preserve a model it argues has supported workers, communities and tribal governments alike.

The lawsuit adds a new layer of legal uncertainty to Maine’s online gaming expansion, setting the stage for a court challenge that could determine whether the state’s tribal-exclusive approach to iCasino can withstand constitutional scrutiny.