Judge denies contempt motion in Pope County casino case

FILE — A roulette wheel spins at Cherokee Casino & Hotel in West Siloam Springs, Okla.
FILE — A roulette wheel spins at Cherokee Casino & Hotel in West Siloam Springs, Okla.

A Pulaski County circuit judge on Thursday denied Gulfside Casino Resort's motion for contempt alleging that the state Racing Commission did not follow its own rules and issue the company a license for a Pope County casino within 30 days of a previous ruling.

In that previous ruling, Pulaski County Circuit Judge Tim Fox validated endorsement letters for Gulfside from former local officials who were no longer in office. Endorsements are required under the 2018 constitutional amendment that legalized casino gambling in the state, including placing a new casino in Pope County.

Fox also ruled Thursday that Legends Resort and Casino LLC — a limited liability company set up by Cherokee Nation Businesses — does not qualify as an applicant for the Pope County license. Legends sought to intervene in the Gulfside lawsuit against the Racing Commission.

Fox provided copies of Constitutional Amendment 100 to all participants and spectators in the courtroom and referenced the document as he denied intervention status to Legends Resort and Casino LLC.

The LLC was created in August by Cherokee Nation Businesses after the Pope County Quorum Court endorsed the group for the license.

Fox said the limited liability company does not meet requirements as outlined in Amendment 100 because it is a new company with no gaming experience.

Cherokee attorney Scott Richardson argued that the new company was in a partnership with Cherokee Nation Businesses.

In denying Gulfside's contempt request, Fox said that his previous ruling on endorsements was based on law, but the 30-day requirement is based on the commission's rules and is therefore out of his jurisdiction.

Gulfside, based in Mississippi, and the Cherokees, based in Oklahoma, were the last two Pope County license applicants standing after all five original applicants — including them — were rejected by the Racing Commission in the first application period last year.

All five were rejected because none met the commission’s rule then in place requiring endorsements from local elected officials in office at the time of the application filing.

Upcoming Events