for early access to the latest igaming videos!
and get the latest igaming news first!
Wisconsin is standing firm behind Act 247, its law allowing Native American tribes to run online sports betting, and is pushing back against a lawsuit filed by the Brown County Taxpayers’ Association.
The state argues that the group does not have the legal standing to challenge the measure and that the claims raised fail to show any violation of the Constitution. Assistant Attorney General Colin Roth filed the reply, saying the law is valid and that the plaintiffs “fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted” and “lack standing to pursue this action.”
The challenge goes back to August when the Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty (WILL) filed suit on behalf of the Brown County Taxpayers’ Association and Citizens Defending Liberty in Waukesha County.
Opponents argue the law violates the state constitution and its 1993 amendment that restricted gambling to certain exceptions like the lottery, bingo, and raffles. They claim the act unfairly singles out tribal members for a benefit not available to others, describing it as race‑based.
The case names Governor Tony Evers, Secretary of Administration Kathy Blumenfeld, Division of Gaming Administrator John Dillett, and Office of Indian Gaming Audit Director Jessie Dushek.
Law sees tribal backing with strong bookie opposition
Supporters of Act 247 say the law simply brings existing online betting into a regulated framework tied to tribal servers. Wisconsin’s tribal nations backed the measure, seeing it as a way to protect consumers and strengthen oversight.
Senate Majority Leader Devin LeMahieu worked with Democrats to move the bill forward, arguing that online betting was already happening and needed regulation.
While national operators like DraftKings and FanDuel opposed the measure, WILL attorney Lucas Vebber noted they are not part of the current lawsuit. Instead, the case focuses on whether the law improperly grants exclusive rights to Wisconsin’s 11 federally recognized tribes.
The state, however, maintains that the law is constitutional and that the plaintiffs lack the grounds to challenge it.
