Anti-casino faction files 1st legal brief in Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Case

8/12/2019 Anti-casino faction files 1st legal brief in Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Case

1/143

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

Supreme Judicial Court

FOR THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTSNo. SJ C- 11641

_____________________________

STEVEN P. ABDOW, STEPHANI E C. CRI MMI NS, J OSEPH A. CURTATONE,GERI EDDI NS, MARK A. GOTTLI EB, CELESTE B. MEYERS, KRI STI AN M.

MI NEAU, KATHLEEN CONLEY NORBUT, J OHN F. RI BEI RO, andSUSAN C. TUCKER,

Pl ai nt i f f s / Appel l ant s ,

v.

GEORGE DUCHARME, ET AL. , DANI EL RI ZZO, ET AL. ,and DOMENI C J . SARNO, ET AL. ,

I nt er vener s/ Appel l ant s,

v.

ATTORNEY GENERAL and SECRETARY OF THE COMMONWEALTH,

Def endant s/ Appel l ees.

________________________________________

BRIEF OF PLAINTIFFS/APPELLANTS________________________________________

H. Reed Wi t her by, BBO #531600SMI TH DUGGAN BUELL & RUFO LLPThr ee Center Pl azaSte. 800

Bost on, Massachuset t s 02108( 617) 228- 4400r wi t her by@smi t hduggan. com

Thomas O. Bean, BBO #548072VERRI LL DANA, LLPOne Bost on Pl aceSte. 1600

Bost on, Massachuset t s 02108( 617) 309- 2600t bean@ver r i l l dana. com

Dat ed: Mar ch 21, 2014


2/143

- i -

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

TABLE OF AUTHORI TI ES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i i i

QUESTI ON PRESENTED. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

STATEMENT OF THE CASE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Pr ocedur al Hi st or y. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

St at ement of Fact s. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

STANDARD OF REVI EW. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

ARGUMENT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

I . THE ATTORNEY GENERAL S ARGUMENT WI LL BEMOOT BEFORE THE LAW PROPOSED BY THEPETI TI ON TAKES EFFECT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

I I . THE LEGI SLATURE LACKED AUTHORI TY TOAUTHORI ZE, AND THE GAMI NG LAW DI D NOT

AUTHORI ZE, THE MGC TO ENTER I NTO ANI MPLI ED CONTRACT THAT WOULD LI MI T ORPREVENT THE COMMONWEALTH FROMEXERCI SI NG I TS CORE POLI CE ANDREGULATORY POWERS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

A. The Ri ght to Li mi t Gambl i ng Li esWi t hi n t he Commonweal t h s Cor ePol i ce and Regul atory Powers, andMay Not be Cont r act ed Away. . . . . . . . . . . . 18

B. Even i f the Legi sl at ur e Wer ePer mi t t ed To Cont r act Away i t sCore Pol i ce Powers, The Gami ng LawDoes Not Cl ear l y Evi nce t heLegi s l at ur e s I nt ent To Do So. . . . . . . . . 25


3/143

- i i -

Page

I I I . EVEN I F THERE I S AN I MPLI ED CONTRACTBETWEEN THE MGC AND APPLI CANTS, THEPROPOSED LAW WOULD NOT CAUSE AN

I MPAI RMENT THEREOF. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

A. The MGC Woul d Not Br each AnyI mpl i ed Cont r act by Compl yi ng wi t ht he Law Pr oposed by the Pet i t i on. . . . . . 34

B. I f t he MGC s Appl i cat i on of t heProposed Law Di d Const i t ut e aBr each of an I mpl i ed Cont r act , t heAppl i cant s Woul d Have a Cl ai m f orDamages. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

I V. THE PROPOSED LAWWI LL NOT RESULT I N ATAKI NG OF PRI VATE PROPERTY OF GAMI NGLI CENSE APPLI CANTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

A. Appl i cant s Have No Compensabl ePr oper t y I nt er est I n t he MGC sConsi derat i on Of and Act i on UponThei r Appl i cat i ons. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

B. Even I f Ther e Wer e A Pr i vat ePr oper t y I nt er est I n The

Commi ss i on s Consi derat i on Of AndAct i on Upon An Appl i cat i on, ThePr oposed Law Woul d Not Resul t I n ACompensabl e Taki ng. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

CONCLUSI ON. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

PROOF OF SERVI CE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

CERTI FI CATE OF COMPLI ANCE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53


4/143

- i i i -

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Page

State Cases

American Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Commissioner

of Ins.,374 Mass. 181 ( 1978) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

Associated Industries of Mass. v. Attorney General,418 Mass. 279 (1994) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15, 16

Boston Elevated Ry. v. Com.,310 Mass. 528 ( 1942) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21, 22, 24, 26

Boston Medical Center Corp. v. Secy of the Exec.Office of Health and Human Services,

463 Mass. 447 ( 2012) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12, 26, 29

Boston v. Back Bay Cultural Assn., Inc.,418 Mass. 175 ( 1994) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Bowe v. Secretary of the Com.,320 Mass. 230 ( 1946) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Bradford & Bigelow, Inc. v. Com.,

24 Mass. App. Ct . 349 (1987) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Carney v. Attorney General ( Carney I ) ,447 Mass. 218 (2006) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20, 22

Carney v. Attorney General ( Carney II ) ,451 Mass. 803 (2008) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . passi m

Cataldo Ambulance Service, Inc. v. Chelsea,

43 Mass. App. Ct . 26 (1997) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Chase Precast Corp. v. John J. Paonessa Co., Inc.,409 Mass. 371 ( 1991) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Chase v. Proprietors of Revere House,232 Mass. 88 ( 1919) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19, 22


5/143

- i v -

Page

City of Salem v. Maynes,123 Mass. 372 ( 1877) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Com. v. Perella,

464 Mass. 274 ( 2013) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Com. v. Wolbarst,319 Mass. 291 (1946) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19, 22

Community Builders, Inc. v. Indian Motorcycle

Associates, Inc.,44 Mass. App. Ct . 537 (1998) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Dimino v. Secretary of Com.,427 Mass. 704 ( 1998) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Fort Point Commercial Co., Inc. v. Spiegel,28 Mass. L. Rpt r . 339, 2011 WL 1758950,( Mass. Super . 2011) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Hollstein v. Contributory Retirement Appeal Bd.,47 Mass. App. Ct . 109 (1999) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Horton v. Attorney General,269 Mass. 503 ( 1930) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Interstate Engineering Corp. v. Fitchburg,367 Mass. 751 ( 1975) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Leonard v. Brimfield,423 Mass. 152 ( 1996) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45, 48, 50

Massachusetts Soc. for Prevention of Cruelty to

Animals v. Commissioner of Public Health,339 Mass. 216 ( 1959) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Mazzone v. Attorney General,432 Mass. 515 ( 2000) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Mello Const., Inc. v. Division of Capital Asset

Management,84 Mass. App. Ct . 625 ( 2013) , rev. denied,467 Mass. 1103 (2014) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32


6/143

- v -

Page

Opinion of the Justices to the Senate and House

of Representatives,341 Mass. 760 ( 1960) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21, 22, 24

Opinion of the Justices to the Senate,375 Mass. 795 ( 1978) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Opinion of the Justices,261 Mass. 523 (1927) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18, 27

Opinion of the Justices,356 Mass. 775(1969) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19, 22

Opinions of the Justices,293 Mass. 589 ( 1935) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Paisner v. Attorney General,390 Mass. 593 ( 1983) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Paquette v. Fall River,338 Mass. 368 ( 1959) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Paul Sardella Const. Co., Inc. v. Braintree

Housing Authority,3 Mass. App. Ct . 326 ( 1975) , affd,371 Mass. 235 ( 1976) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30, 31, 32

Phipps Products Corp. v. Massachusetts Bay

Transp. Authority,387 Mass. 687 ( 1982) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Salamon v. Terra,394 Mass. 857 ( 1985) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Selectmen of Topsfield v. State Racing Commn,324 Mass. 309 (1949) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . passi m

Spector v. Building Inspector of Milton,250 Mass. 63 ( 1924) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

Town of Milton v. Com.,416 Mass. 471 ( 1993) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26, 27, 31


7/143

- vi -

Page

Yankee Atomic Elec. Co. v. Secretary of the Com.( Yankee I) ,

402 Mass. 750 ( 1988) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Yankee Atomic Elec. Co. v. Secretary of the

Commonwealth ( Yankee II),403 Mass. 203 ( 1988) . . . . . . . . . . . . 14, 15, 16, 17, 46

Federal Cases

American Auto. Mfrs. Assn v. Massachusetts

Dept. of Envtl. Protection,163 F. 3d 74 (1st Ci r . 1998) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

American Pelagic Fishing Co., L.P. v. U.S.,379 F. 3d 1363 ( Fed. Ci r . 2004) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41, 45

Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Goldsboro,232 U. S. 548 ( 1914) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Bowen v. Public Agencies Opposed to Social Sec.

Entrapment,477 U. S. 41 ( 1986) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

Connolly v. Pension Ben. Guar. Corp.,475 U. S. 211 ( 1986) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

Conti v. U.S.,48 Fed. Cl . 532 ( Ct . Cl . 2001)affd, 291 F. 3d 1334. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41, 43, 45

Folden v. U.S.,

56 Fed. Cl . 43 ( 2003) , affd, 379 F. 3d1344 ( Fed. Ci r . 2004) , cert. denied,545 U. S. 1127 (2005) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43, 49

Hawkeye Commodity Promotions, Inc. v. Vilsack,

486 F. 3d 430 (8th Ci r . 2007) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

Hendler v. U.S.,952 F. 2d 1364 ( Fed. Ci r . 1991) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44


8/143

- vi i -

Page

Holliday Amusement Co. of Charleston, Inc. v.

South Carolina,493 F. 3d 404 ( 4t h Ci r . 2007) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46, 48

Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council,505 U. S. 1003 ( 1992) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

Maritrans Inc. v. U.S.,342 F. 3d 1344 ( Fed. Ci r . 2003) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41, 45

Mass. Eye and Ear Infirmary v. QLT

Phototherapeutics, Inc.,552 F. 3d 47 (1st Ci r . 2009) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Mitchell Arms, Inc. v. U.S.,7 F. 3d 212 ( Fed. Ci r . 1993) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

Penn Cent. Transp. Co. v. New York City,438 U. S. 104 ( 1978) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14, 40, 46, 50

Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon,260 U. S. 393 ( 1922) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

Ruckelshaus v. Monsanto Co.,467 U. S. 986 ( 1984) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

Stone v. Mississippi,101 U. S. 814 (1879) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23, 24

Tyler v. Michaels Stores, Inc.,840 F. Supp. 2d 451 ( D. Mass. 2012) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

U.S. Trust of New York v. New Jersey,431 U. S. 1 ( 1977) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22, 24, 39

U.S. v. General Motors Corp.,323 U. S. 377 ( 1945) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

U.S. v. Winstar Corp.,518 U. S. 839 ( 1996) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Unity Real Estate Co. v. Hudson,178 F. 3d 649 (3rd Ci r . 1999) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46


9/143

- vi i i -

Page

Massachusetts Constitution

Massachuset t s Const i t ut i on,

Amend. Ar t . 48. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . passi mStatutes

Federal

I ndi an Gami ng Regul atory Act25 U. S. C. 2701 et seq. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

State

G. L. c. 23K, 3( l ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32G. L. c. 23K, 10( a) and ( d) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47G. L. c. 23K, 11( a) and ( b) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47G. L. c. 23K, 12. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38, 44G. L. c. 23K, 13. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44G. L. c. 23K, 15 ( 8) , ( 9) , ( 13) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29G. L. c. 23K, 15( 11) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47G. L. c. 23K, 17(g) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29, 32, 33, 41, 42G. L. c. 23K, 18. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32G. L. c. 23K, 19- 20. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4, 41G. L. c. 23K, 30( e) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32G. L. c. 23K, 61( b) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

G. L. c. 23K, 71. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34G. L. c. 149, 44A( 2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32G. L. c. 149, 44D. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32St . 2008, c. 388. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20St . 2011, c. 194, 91. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4St . 2011, c. 194, 97. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Massachusetts Regulations

205 C. M. R. Par t s 111- 117. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47205 C. M. R. 121. 01(1) and (2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47


10/143

QUESTION PRESENTED

Whet her t he At t or ney Gener al er r ed i n r ef usi ng t o

cer t i f y an I ni t i at i ve Pet i t i on ent i t l ed An Act

Rel at i ve t o I l l egal Gami ng ( t he Pet i t i on) f or

i ncl usi on on t he St at e el ect i on bal l ot i n November ,

2014, on t he gr ound t hat t he Pet i t i on i s i nconsi st ent

wi t h t he r i ght of appl i cant s f or gami ng l i censes t o

r ecei ve compensat i on f or pr i vat e pr oper t y appr opr i at ed

t o publ i c use.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Procedural History

Pl ai nt i f f s f i l ed t he Pet i t i on wi t h t he At t or ney

Gener al on or bef or e the f i r st Wednesday i n August of

2013, pur suant t o amendment Ar t . 48 of t he

Massachuset t s Const i t ut i on. Recor d Appendi x ( R. A.

___) 40, 9. The Pet i t i on proposed a l aw t hat woul d

r edef i ne i l l egal gami ng and pr ohi bi t t he conduct or

l i censi ng of al l such i l l egal gami ng af t er t he l aw

t ook ef f ect. Id. 152.

On Sept ember 4, 2013, t he At t orney General

decl i ned t o cer t i f y t he Pet i t i on as compl yi ng wi t h

Ar t . 48 on the gr ound that t he l aw i t pr oposed woul d

t ake an asser t ed r i ght based on an i mpl i ed

cont r act bet ween t he Massachuset t s Gami ng Commi ssi on

and gami ng l i cense appl i cant s of gami ng l i cense


11/143

-2 -

appl i cant s t o consi der at i on of and act i on upon t hei r

appl i cat i ons. R. A. 40, 10, and 155- 165. 1

Pl ai nt i f f s pr ompt l y f i l ed t hi s act i on t o

chal l enge t he At t or ney Gener al s deci si on. R. A. 8- 12

and 40, 11. On Sept ember 13, 2013, t he par t i es

agr eed t o, and t he Count y Cour t ent er ed, a pr el i mi nar y

or der r equi r i ng t hat t he At t or ney Gener al r el ease a

summar y of [ t he Pet i t i on] t o t he Secr et ar y [ of St at e] ,

and t hat t he Secr et ar y . . . and t ake al l ot her st eps

he woul d have been r equi r ed t o t ake under amendment

Ar t i cl e 48 had t he pet i t i on been cer t i f i ed, shor t of

pr i nt i ng t he pr oposed l aw i n t he I nf or mat i on f or

Vot er s Gui de or on t he bal l ot . R. A. 14.

The Pl ai nt i f f s t hen obt ai ned and f i l ed suf f i ci ent

vot er s si gnat ur es r equi r ed by Ar t . 48. R. A. 41, 12

and 173- 74. On or bef ore J anuary 9, 2014, t he

Secr et ar y t r ansmi t t ed t he Pet i t i on t o t he Cl er k of t he

House of Repr esent at i ves. Id. 41, 13. As of Febr uar y

14, 2014, t he Legi sl at ur e had not enact ed t he l aw

pr oposed by t he Pet i t i on. Id.

1 The At t or ney Gener al pr oper l y concl uded t hat t heproposed l aw woul d not r esul t i n a t aki ng ofpr oper t y r i ght s i n l i censes i ssued under t he Gami ngLaw: t o be sur e, appl i cant s f or gami ng l i censes wi l lhave no pr oper t y r i ght s i n any l i censes t hey mayr ecei ve at t he end of t he appl i cat i on pr ocess. R. A.164.


12/143

-3 -

The County Cour t al l owed mot i ons t o i nter vene by

George Ducharme and cer t ai n ot her Massachuset t s

vot er s, 2 and by cer t ai n vot er s i n each of t he ci t i es of

Rever e and Spr i ngf i el d, and r eserved and r epor t ed t he

case wi t hout deci si on t o t he Ful l Cour t . R. A. 5- 6,

Dkt . Nos. 7 and 29, and R. A. 747- 48.

The Secr et ar y needs t o know by J ul y 9, 2014,

whether t he l aw pr oposed by t he Pet i t i on shoul d appear

on the November 2014 st at e el ect i on bal l ot , t o i ncl ude

i t i n t he bal l ot mat er i al s . Id. at 65, 59.

Statement of Facts

The Gaming Law

Chapt er 194 of t he Act s of 2011 ( t he Gami ng

Law) enact ed, among ot her t hi ngs, G. L. c. 23K t hat

cr eat ed a Massachuset t s Gami ng Commi ssi on ( MGC or

t he Commi ss i on) . See St . 2011, c. 194. The Gami ng

Law t r ansf er r ed al l l i censi ng and r egul at i on of t he

Massachuset t s r aci ng i ndust r y f r om t he St at e Raci ng

Commi ss i on t o t he MGC, and aut hor i zed cer t ai n f orms of

gambl i ng pr evi ousl y i l l egal i n t he Commonweal t h, al l

t o be heavi l y r egul ated by t he MGC pur suant t o t he

compr ehensi ve st atut ory scheme detai l ed i n t he

stat ut e. Id.

2 Fi ve cor por at e gami ng appl i cant s al so soughti nt ervener st atus i n t he Ducharme mot i on but t henwai ved t hei r r equest s. See R. A. 5, Dkt . No. 16.


13/143


14/143

-5 -

39 and 73- 100. Whi l e t he r ef er endum pet i t i oner s di d

not chal l enge t hat deci si on i n cour t , J ohn Ri bei r o,

Chai r man of t he Repeal t he Casi no Deal Commi t t ee,

pr omi sed i n a st atement quoted i n the Boston Herald,

t he Quincy Patriot Ledger, and t he Brockton Enterprise

on or about December 19, 2011, t hat t he Commi t t ee

woul d t ake [ t he i ssue] up as an i ni t i at i ve [ pet i t i on]

at t he 2014 bal l ot . R. A. 39, 6 and 144- 49.

The License Application Process

I n Oct ober 2012, t he MGC est abl i shed a t wo- st ep

pr ocess t o r ecei ve and eval uat e appl i cat i ons f or

gami ng l i censes: ( 1) an i ni t i al Phase 1 Appl i cat i on

( RFA- 1) t o f ocus on each appl i cant s qual i f i cat i ons

and sui t abi l i t y, i n advance of ( 2) a si t e speci f i c

Phase 2 Appl i cat i on ( RFA- 2) f r om appl i cant s f ound

qual i f i ed and sui t abl e i n Phase 1. R. A. 41, 15. The

MGC set J anuar y 15, 2013, as t he deadl i ne f or al l

Phase 1 appl i cat i ons f or Regi on A and B Casi no

l i censes, and t he Sl ot s Par l or l i cense. Id. On that

dat e, t he MGC announced t hat el even ent i t i es had f i l ed

Phase 1 appl i cat i ons f or t he Casi no Li censes i n

Regi ons A and B, and t he si ngl e Sl ot s Par l or l i cense

avai l abl e. R. A. 43, 18. The MGC set a deadl i ne of

December 31, 2013, f or submi ss i on of Phase 2

appl i cat i ons f or such l i censes. R. A. 50, 28, 53,

34, 54, 36.


15/143

-6 -

Status of Slots Parlor Applications

Fi ve commer ci al ent i t i es t i mel y f i l ed RFA- 1

appl i cat i ons f or t he Sl ot s Par l or Li cense. R. A. 44,

20. Four of t he f i ve wer e f ound sui t abl e, but one

wi t hdr ew f r om t he pr ocess af t er t hr ee muni ci pal i t i es

( Wor cest er , Mi l l bur y, and Boxbor ough) r ej ect ed i t s

ent r eat i es t o have t hem serve as a host communi t y. Id.

44- 48, 21- 25.

I n Oct ober 2013, t he t hr ee r emai ni ng Sl ot s Par l or

Li cense appl i cant s t he MGC had f ound sui t abl e

submi t t ed si t e- speci f i c RFA- 2s. R. A. 45- 48, 23-

25. On Febr uar y 28, 2014, t he MGC awarded t he si ngl e

Sl ot s Par l or l i cense t o Penn Nat i onal f or an

est abl i shment at t he Pl ai nr i dge har ness r aci ng t r ack

i n Pl ai nvi l l e. R. A. 44- 45, 20, and

ht t p: / / massgami ng. com/ wp- cont ent / upl oads/ Appl i cant -

st at us. pdf . Penn Nat i onal s RFA- 2 r epor t ed t hat i t had

assets of $5. 4 bi l l i on and st ockhol der equi t y of $2. 3

bi l l i on; i t pr oj ected gr oss r evenues f r om t he f i r st

f i ve year s of oper at i ng t he Sl ot s Par l or at mor e t han

$1 bi l l i on. R. A. 47- 48, 25.

Status of Applications for

Casino Licenses in Regions A and B

Si x commer ci al ent i t i es submi t t ed RFA- 1

appl i cat i ons f or a Casi no Li cense sui t abi l i t y

det er mi nat i on, t hr ee f or host communi t i es i n Regi on


16/143

-7 -

A, St er l i ng Suf f ol k at Suf f ol k Downs i n East Bost on

and Revere; Wynn Resor t s i n Everet t ; and Foxwoods i n

Mi l f or d ( R. A. 49- 52, 27- 30, 53, 34) , and t hr ee

host communi t i es i n Regi on B - MGM i n Spr i ngf i el d;

Hard Rock i n West Spr i ngf i el d; and Mohegan Sun i n

Pal mer . R. A. 54- 55, 35- 37.

Af t er vot er s i n t he pr oposed host communi t i es

of West Spr i ngf i el d, Pal mer , East Bost on and Mi l f or d

r ej ected t hei r host communi t y agr eement s ( R. A. 51,

29- 30, 54, 35, 55, 37) , one vi abl e Casi no Li cense

appl i cant wi t h a posi t i ve sui t abi l i t y det er mi nat i on

and appr oved HCA r emai ned i n Regi on A: Wynn

Massachuset t s, LLC, i n Ever et t , and one i n Regi on B:

MGM i n Spr i ngf i el d. R. A. 49- 50, 28, 52, 32; 54- 55,

36. Wynn s RFA- 2 appl i cat i on r epor t ed $7 bi l l i on i n

asset s and $177 mi l l i on st ockhol der s equi t y; i t

pr oj ected t o generate gami ng revenue of appr oxi matel y

$4 bi l l i on i n t he f i r st f i ve year s of oper at i on. R. A.

49- 50, 28. MGM Spr i ngf i el d s RFA- 2 r epor t ed t hat i t s

par ent company, MGM Resor t s I nt er nat i onal , had asset s

of over $25 bi l l i on and st ockhol der equi t y of over $7

bi l l i on; i t pr oj ect ed t o gener at e gami ng r evenue of

over $2. 4 bi l l i on dur i ng t he f i r st f i ve year s of

oper at i ons. R. A. 54- 55, 36.

At a meet i ng on December 10, 2013, t he MGC vot ed

t o i nvi t e Mohegan Sun t o request a wai ver of t he RFA- 2


17/143

-8 -

r egul at i ons and t o submi t an RFA- 2 appl i cat i on f or a

f aci l i t y t o be l ocat ed i n Rever e wi t hout t he r equi r ed

pr i or r ef er endum appr oval of vot er s i n t hat ci t y, wi t h

t he condi t i on t hat Mohegan Sun ent er i nt o i t s own HCA

wi t h Revere and commi t t o hol di ng a r ef erendum wi t hi n

60- 90 days. R. A. 52, 32. Mohegan Sun di d reach an

HCA wi t h Rever e, whi ch Rever e vot ers appr oved on

Febr uary 25, 2014, t hereby i ncr easi ng t he number of

sui t abl e Phase 2 appl i cant s f or a Casi no l i cense i n

Regi on A t o t wo. See R. A. 44- 45, 20 and


stat us. pdf .

The MGC i ntends t o compl et e i t s r evi ew and awar d

a Regi on B Casi no Li cense, i f any, by May 30, 2014.

Id. I t i nt ends t o awar d a Regi on A l i cense, i f any,

by J une 30, 2014. Id.

The Tribal Compact and Region C Application

The Governor ent er ed i nto, and t he Gener al Cour t

approved, a Compact ( t he Compact ) wi t h t he Mashpee

Wampanoag Tr i be ( t he Tr i be) , a f eder al l y recogni zed

I ndi an Tr i be i n t he Commonweal t h. R. A. 56- 57, 38-

40. The Compact gr ant ed t he Tr i be t he r i ght t o operate

a gami ng f aci l i t y on l and i n Taunt on t hat i t had

opt i ons t o acqui r e under an I nt er gover nment al

Agr eement ( I GA) wi t h the Ci t y of Taunt on, subj ect t o

f eder al Bur eau of I ndi an Af f ai r s ( BI A) appr oval of


18/143

-9 -

t he Compact and t he I GA and t he BI A s t aki ng t he

Taunton l and i n t r ust under aut hor i t y of t he f eder al

I ndi an Gami ng Regul atory Act , 25 U. S. C. 2701 et seq.

( I GRA) . Id. 3

On Apr i l 18, 2013, whi l e not i ng i t s oper at i ng

pr esumpt i on t hat t he Tr i be woul d ul t i mat el y be

al l owed to oper at e a gami ng est abl i shment under i t s

Compact and t aki ng no posi t i on on whether t he BI A

woul d ul t i mat el y appr ove t he Tr i be s l and i n t r ust

appl i cat i on, t he MGC announced t hat i t woul d open t he

pr ocess f or possi bl y gr ant i ng a commer ci al Casi no

Li cense i n Regi on C. R. A. 57, 41. I t set Sept ember

30, 2013, as t he deadl i ne t o submi t a Regi on C RFA- 1

sui t abi l i t y appl i cat i on, but f ur t her pr ovi ded t hat

ent i t i es t hat had pr evi ousl y f i l ed an RFA- 1 f or

another r egi on or t he sl ot s par l or and had been f ound

sui t abl e need not f i l e a new RFA- 1. R. A. 58- 59, 42.

Onl y one new appl i cant , KG New Bedf ord, LLC ( KG) ,

submi t t ed an RFA- 1. Id. KG has not r ecei ved a

sui t abi l i t y det er mi nat i on nor has i t ent er ed i nt o an

HCA wi t h any communi t y. Id. ( KG al ong wi t h t he 11

ent i t i es t hat had pr evi ousl y f i l ed RFA- 1s ar e at t i mes

r ef er r ed t o her ei n as t he Appl i cant s. )

3 The l and- i n- t r ust appl i cat i on i s st i l l pendi ng at BI A.R. A. 56- 57, 38- 41.


19/143

- 10-

The MGC set a J ul y 23, 2014, deadl i ne f or Regi on

C si t e- speci f i c RFA- 2 appl i cat i ons; i t i nt ends t o

i ssue a Regi on C commer ci al Casi no l i cense, i f any,

by November 20, 2014. R. A. 44- 45, 20, 62, 49, and


stat us. pdf .

Applicants Awareness of Potential Repeal Efforts

Awar eness of t he possi bi l i t y of r epeal or

mat er i al change t o t he Gami ng Law has been mani f est by

t he conduct of both the Commonweal t h and Appl i cant s.

The Compact si gned by t he Governor and approved by t he

General Cour t i ncl udes an aut omat i c amendment

r equi r i ng t he Tr i be to cease any gami ng act i vi t i es

made i l l egal by subsequent amendment or r epeal of

pr ovi si ons of t he Gami ng Law. R. A. 56, 39 and R. A.

557, 4. 2 and 599, 25. 1. 2. To t he same ef f ect , t he

Penn Nat i onal - Pl ai nvi l l e HCA cont ai ns a f or ce maj eur e

cl ause t hat excuses per f or mance f or :

. . . any condi t i on t hat pr event s orsi gni f i cant l y i nt er f er es wi t h t he oper at i onsof [ t he] gami ng est abl i shment [ or ] t hef or ced cl osur e of al l gami ng est abl i shment sby t he Commonweal t h of Massachuset t s or t heMassachuset t s Gami ng Commi ssi on; and act i onsor f ai l ur es t o act of any gover nment al

aut hor i t y or agency.

R. A. 47 ci t i ng ht t p: / / massgami ng. com/ wp-

cont ent / upl oads/ Pl ai nr i dge- Host - Communi t y-

Agr eement . pdf . at 8, 10( C) . The MGM/ Spr i ngf i el d HCA


20/143

- 11-

and Mohegan Sun/ Revere HCA cont ai n si mi l ar f orce

maj eur e or t er mi nat i on l anguage. See

ht t p: / / massgami ng. com/ wp- cont ent / upl oads/ Spr i ngf i el d-

Host - Communi t y- Agr eement . pdf at 40, 12. 1( f ) and

ht t p: / / massgami ng. com/ wp- cont ent / upl oads/ Revere- HCA-

12- 23- 13. pdf at 36( N) and 38 S( 1) ( e) .

Bi l l s t o change t he Gami ng Law, i ncl udi ng one t o

r epeal t he l aw i n i t s ent i r et y ( S. 167) , have been

pendi ng f r om i ncept i on of t he cur r ent 188t h sessi on.

See ht t p: / / mal egi sl at ur e. gov/ Bi l l s/ 188

[ H310, H320, H2504, H3222, S166, S167, S197, S1311] .

Appl i cant s have acknowl edged t hat t hey knew of t he

Pet i t i on and t he possi bi l i t y of mat er i al changes t o

t he Gami ng Law, and even advocated f or t hei r own

changes. R. A. 60- 61, 45- 47, and 643- 52.

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

I . Moot ness. The At t or ney Gener al cont ends t hat

t he l aw pr oposed by t he Pet i t i on woul d const i t ut e a

t aki ng sol el y because i t al l egedl y woul d wr ongf ul l y

pr event t he MGC f r om r ul i ng on pendi ng appl i cat i ons.

Event s have overt aken t hi s r at i onal e. The MGC has

al r eady i ssued t he onl y Sl ot s Par l or l i cense, and

i nt ends t o compl et e i t s consi der at i on of , and act on,

al l appl i cat i ons f or Casi no Li censes not l at er t han

November 20, 2014 t wo weeks before t he pr oposed l aw


21/143

- 12-

woul d t ake ef f ect . As such, t he pr oposed l aw, i f

passed, woul d not af f ect any appl i cat i on ( pp. 16- 17) .

I I ( A) . I nval i di t y of Any I mpl i ed Cont r act. For

more t han a cent ur y, t hi s Cour t and the U. S. Supr eme

Cour t have hel d t hat st at e l egi sl at ur es l ack t he

aut hor i t y t o cont r act away t he St at e s r i ght t o

exer ci se i t s pol i ce and r egul at or y power s. As t he

power of t he peopl e t o enact l aws t hr ough t he

i ni t i at i ve pr ocess i s coext ensi ve wi t h t hat of t he

Legi sl at ur e, and t he r egul at i on of gambl i ng i s at t he

cor e of t he St at e s pol i ce and r egul at or y power s, any

i mpl i ed cont r act t hat pur por t ed t o pr event t he peopl e

f r om exer ci si ng such power s i s, as t hi s Cour t put i t

i n an Opi ni on of t he J ust i ces, i nval i d ( pp. 17- 25) .

I I ( B) . Non- Exi st ence of an I mpl i ed Cont r act . Thi s

Cour t r ecent l y wr ot e: [ A] cont r act ual cl ai m does not

ar i se under a st at ut e unl ess t he Legi sl at ur e has

expl i ci t l y expr essed t he i nt ent t o wai ve sover ei gn

i mmuni t y and creat e a cont r actual r emedy. Boston

Medical Center Corp. v. Secy of the Exec. Office of

Health and Human Services, 463 Mass. 447, 459 ( 2012) .

I n enact i ng t he Gami ng Law, t he Legi sl atur e expr essed

neither an expl i ci t i nt ent t o creat e a cont r act

bet ween t he MGC and Appl i cant s nor any i nt ent t o wai ve

soverei gn i mmuni t y. I ndeed, t he Gami ng Law expr essl y

aut hor i zes and di r ect s t he MGC t o ent er i nt o cer t ai n


22/143

- 13-

t ypes of cont r act s, but not wi t h t he Appl i cant s ( pp.

25- 33) .

I I I . No I mpai r ment of I mpl i ed Cont r act . Thi s

Cour t has hel d on mul t i pl e occasi ons t hat i f t he l aw

i s changed whi l e an appl i cat i on f or a l i cense i s

pendi ng, t he l aw i n ef f ect at t he t i me t he appl i cat i on

i s r ul ed on, r at her t han t he l aw i n ef f ect at t he t i me

t he appl i cat i on was submi t t ed, appl i es. Accor di ngl y,

i f t he pr oposed l aw i s enact ed, and i f t her e ar e any

appl i cat i ons st i l l pendi ng when i t becomes ef f ect i ve,

t he MGC woul d honor not vi ol ate any i mpl i ed

cont r act by decl i ni ng t o i ssue t he appl i cant a

l i cense. And, even i f t he MGC di d br each such a

cont r act by doi ng so, Appl i cant s may obt ai n an

appr opr i ate award of damages ( pp. 33- 39) .

I V. No Taki ng of Appl i cant s Pr i vat e Pr oper t y.

Li ke t he r acet r ack owner s i n t he r ecent Ar t . 48 case

of Carney v. Attorney General, 451 Mass. 803 ( 2008)

( Carney II) , gami ng l i cense appl i cant s have no

compensabl e pr i vat e pr oper t y i nt er est . Thei r al l eged

pr oper t y i nt er est i n t he MGC s r evi ewi ng and act i ng on

t hei r appl i cat i ons l acks t he t r adi t i onal hal l mar ks of

pr i vat e pr oper t y, such as t r ansf er abi l i t y and

excl udabi l i t y. Havi ng vol unt ar i l y ent er ed i nt o a

heavi l y r egul at ed i ndust r y subj ect t o per vasi ve

gover nment cont r ol , appl i cant s l ack a pr i vat e pr oper t y


23/143

- 14-

i nt er est t hat r equi r es compensat i on when t he

government chooses t o modi f y t he pr ogr amt hat cr eat ed

t he benef i t i n t he f i r st pl ace ( pp. 39- 45) .

I n addi t i on, t he Appl i cant s cannot sat i sf y any of

t he pr ongs of t he r egul at or y t aki ngs t est of Penn

Central Transp. Co. v. New York City, 438 U. S. 104,

124 ( 1978) : ( 1) al t hough t he appl i cat i on f ees and

sur char ges may seem subst ant i al i n t he abst r act , t hey

ar e i nsi gni f i cant i n r el at i on t o t he asset s of t he

Appl i cant s, whi ch gener al l y ar e i n t he bi l l i ons;

( 2) t he Appl i cant s, i n t he heavi l y regul at ed gami ng

i ndust r y, cannot r easonabl y have expect ed t hat t he

Gami ng Law woul d not be amended by i ni t i at i ve pet i t i on

( or l egi sl at i on) t hat woul d r est r i ct or abol i sh f ut ur e

casi no or sl ot s par l or l i censes or oper at i ons; and

( 3) t he char act er of t he pr oposed l aw i s pl ai nl y a

r egul at or y exer ci se of t he pol i ce power , not a

physi cal i nvasi on of t he Appl i cant s pr i vat e pr oper t y

( pp. 45- 50) .

STANDARD OF REVIEW

Thi s Cour t s r evi ew of t he At t or ney Gener al s

deni al of cert i f i cat i on i s de novo. Mazzone v.

Attorney General, 432 Mass. 515, 520 ( 2000) ( ci t i ng

Yankee Atomic Elec. Co. v. Secretary of the

Commonwealth, 403 Mass. 203, 207 ( 1988) ( Yankee II) ) .

Fur t hermore, t he bur den i s on t he At t orney General and


24/143

- 15-

t he I nt er vener s t o est abl i sh t hat i t i s r easonabl y

cl ear t hat t he Pet i t i on cont ai ns a mat t er excl uded

f rom Art . 48. Associated Industries of Mass. v.

Attorney General, 418 Mass. 279, 287 (1994) ( unl ess

i t i s r easonabl y cl ear t hat a pr oposal cont ai ns an

excl uded mat t er , nei t her t he At t or ney Gener al nor t hi s

cour t on r evi ew shoul d pr event t he pr oposal f r om

appear i ng on t he bal l ot . ) . Thi s r equi r ement i s based

on t he f i r ml y est abl i shed pr i nci pl e t hat Ar t . 48 i s

t o be const r ued t o suppor t t he peopl e s prer ogat i ve t o

i ni t i at e and adopt l aws. Yankee II, 403 Mass. at 211.

Accor di ngl y, cer t i f i cat i on shoul d not be deni ed

because of a specul at i ve possi bi l i t y t hat some f act or

f act s may exi st , out si de t he r ange of t he f act s t hat

t he At t or ney Gener al shoul d consi der , t hat woul d cause

t he pet i t i on t o r el at e t o an excl uded mat t er .

Associated Indus., 418 Mass. at 286- 87.

When r evi ewi ng t he f act s consi dered by t he

At t or ney Gener al i n r evi ewi ng a pet i t i on, t hi s Cour t

consi der [ s] anew what f act s ar e i mpl i ci t i n t he

l anguage of t he pet i t i on or ar e subj ect t o j udi ci al

not i ce. Id. at 286. As t o t hose f act s, t hi s Cour t i s

not bound by the At t or ney Gener al ' s det er mi nat i ons.

Yankee II, 403 Mass . at 207. Thi s Cour t i s al so t o

consi der f act s t hat ar e subj ect t o t he At t or ney

Gener al ' s of f i ci al not i ce t hat t he At t or ney Gener al


25/143

- 16-

unr easonabl y di sr egar ded. Associated Indus., 418

Mass. at 286 ( ci t i ng Yankee II) .

"Fact ual mat t er s whi ch ar e ' i ndi sput abl y t r ue'

ar e subj ect t o j udi ci al not i ce; t hese i ncl ude

' [ m] at t ers of common knowl edge or obser vat i on wi t hi n

t he communi t y. ' . . . Of f i ci al not i ce i ncl udes mat t er s

subj ect t o j udi ci al not i ce, as wel l as addi t i onal

i t ems of whi ch an agency of f i ci al may t ake not i ce due

t o t he agency' s est abl i shed f ami l i ar i t y wi t h and

exper t i se r egar di ng a par t i cul ar subj ect ar ea. Yankee

Atomic Elec. Co. v. Secretary of the Com., 402 Mass.

750, 759 n. 7 ( 1988) ( "Yankee I" ) .

ARGUMENT

I. THE ATTORNEY GENERALS ARGUMENT WILL BE MOOTBEFORE THE LAW PROPOSED BY THE PETITION TAKESEFFECT.

The At t or ney Gener al s ar gument , whi ch i s based

excl usi vel y on t he pur por t ed i mpl i ed cont r act r i ght s

of applicants f or gami ng l i censes, has al r eady become

moot wi t h r espect t o t he Cat egor y 2 sl ot s par l or

l i cense because t he MGC compl et ed i t s r evi ew of al l

appl i cat i ons and announced i t s sel ect i on of t he

l i censee on Febr uary 28, 2014. 4 Wi t h r espect t o the

appl i cat i ons f or Cat egor y 1 casi no l i censes, t he MGC

i s schedul ed t o award any l i censes i n Regi ons A and B

4 R. A. 62, 49 and ht t p: / / massgami ng. com/ wp-cont ent / upl oads/ Li censi ng- Schedul e. pdf , whi ch t he par t i esagr eed i n 49 the Cour t may revi ew.


26/143

- 17-

by J une 30, 2014, and May 30, 2014, r espect i vel y. Id.

Wi t h r espect t o Regi on C, i f any RFA- 2 appl i cat i ons

ar e f i l ed by t he deadl i ne of J ul y 23, 2014 ( R. A. 58-

59, 42) , t he MGC i nt ends t o act on such appl i cat i ons

by November 20, 2014. R. A. 62, 49.

I f enact ed by t he vot ers on November 4, 2014, 5 t he

l aw pr oposed by the Pet i t i on woul d become ef f ect i ve

t hi r t y days t her eaf t er . Ar t . 48, Par t V, 1. December

4, 2014 i s t wo weeks after t he l at est possi bl e dat e

November 20t h

t he MGC wi l l compl et e i t s r evi ew of and

act on al l appl i cat i ons. R. A. 62, 49. Accor di ngl y,

t he MGC wi l l have t aken f i nal act i on on al l

appl i cat i ons bef or e December 4, 2014, and t her e wi l l

be no appl i cat i ons f or gami ng l i censes pendi ng on t hat

dat e. Ther ef or e, t he At t or ney Gener al s ar gument wi l l

be moot by t he t i me the l aw pr oposed by t he Pet i t i on,

i f passed, t akes ef f ect.

II. THE LEGISLATURE LACKED AUTHORITY TO AUTHORIZE,

AND THE GAMING LAW DID NOT AUTHORIZE, THE MGC TO

ENTER INTO AN IMPLIED CONTRACT THAT WOULD LIMIT

OR PREVENT THE COMMONWEALTH FROM EXERCISING ITS

CORE POLICE AND REGULATORY POWERS.

The At t or ney Gener al s asser t i on t hat t he MGC

ent er ed i nt o i mpl i ed cont r act s wi t h t he Appl i cant s

f ai l s f or at l east t wo r easons. Fi r st , because t he

r egul at i on of gambl i ng i s at t he cor e of t he

5 R. A. 65, 59.


27/143

- 18-

Commonweal t h s pol i ce power , t he Legi sl at ur e l acks t he

aut hor i t y t o aut hor i ze t he MGC t o ent er i nt o a

cont r act t hat woul d l i mi t i t s and t he peopl e s abi l i t y

t o exer ci se that power . Accor di ngl y, any such i mpl i ed

cont r act woul d be i nval i d. Second, f or t he MGC t o have

t he aut hor i t y t o ent er i nt o a cont r act wi t h t he

Appl i cant s, t he Gami ng Law woul d need t o show expl i ci t

l egi s l at i ve i nt ent t o t hat ef f ect and t o wai ve t he

Commonweal t h s sover ei gn i mmuni t y ar i si ng f r omany

br each of such cont r act . The Gami ng Law does nei t her .

A. The Right to Limit Gambling Lies Within the

Commonwealths Core Police and Regulatory

Powers, and May Not be Contracted Away.

1. The power to limit gambling is at thecore of the Commonwealths police powerand extends to the people under Art.48.

Thi s Cour t has r epeat edl y concl uded t hat proper t y

r i ght s ar e hel d subj ect t o t he f ai r exer ci se of t he

pol i ce power , i . e. , t he power t o make l aws t o secur e

t he gener al wel f ar e of t he communi t y. See, e.g.,

Paquette v. Fall River, 338 Mass. 368, 375 ( 1959) ;

Opinion of the Justices, 261 Mass. 523, 553 ( 1927) .

The suppr essi on of gambl i ng l i es wi t hi n t he domai n oft he pol i ce power of t he Commonweal t h, and t he exer ci se

of t hi s power , whi ch began near l y t hr ee cent ur i es ago,

has been governed by st atut es of St ate wi de


28/143


29/143

- 20-

pr ocess i s, except as t o mat t er s expr essl y excl uded by

Ar t . 48, coext ensi ve wi t h t hat of t he Legi sl at ur e, 8

t hi s Cour t r ecent l y obser ved t hat par t i cul ar f or ms of

gambl i ng may be abol i shed by the people t hr ough t he

i ni t i at i ve process. Carney v. Attorney General, 447

Mass. 218, 232 n. 22 ( 2006) ( Carney I) ( [ w] e do not

quest i on t he power of t he . . . peopl e thr ough t he

i ni t i at i ve pr ocess t o abol i sh ani mal r aci ng i nvol vi ng

bet t i ng or wager i ng) . 9 Si mi l ar l y, her e, t he peopl e,

t hr ough t he i ni t i at i ve pr ocess, have t he

const i t ut i onal r i ght t o l i mi t or abol i sh ot her f or ms

of gambl i ng, pr ovi ded t he i ni t i at i ve does not f al l

wi t hi n one of t he excl usi ons i n Ar t . 48.

2. Because the Legislature may notcontract away the Commonwealths corepolice power, any implied contract thatpurports to do so is invalid.

Massachuset t s adher es t o t he l ong- est abl i shed

r ul e that t he pol i ce power of t he St at e can nei t her

be abdi cat ed nor bar gai ned away, and i s i nal i enabl e

8 [ E] xcept as t o mat t er s expr essl y excl uded, t he scopeof t he power of t he peopl e t o enact l aws di r ect l y i sas ext ensi ve as t hat of t he Gener al Cour t . Opinion ofthe Justices to the Senate, 375 Mass. 795, 817 ( 1978) .See also, e.g., Paisner v. Attorney General, 390 Mass.593, 603 (1983) ( The peopl e t hr ough the popul ar

i ni t i at i ve do i ndeed, as we st at ed i n t he 1978Opi ni on, have a power t o enact l egi sl at i on whi ch i scoext ensi ve wi t h t he power of t he Gener al Cour t . )

9 Af t er t hi s Cour t s deci si on i n Carney II, t he peopl evot ed t o ban par i - mut uel wager i ng on dog- r aci ng. St .2008, c. 388.


30/143

- 21-

even by expr ess gr ant ; and . . . al l cont r act and

pr oper t y r i ght s ar e hel d subj ect t o i t s f ai r

exer ci se. Boston Elevated Ry. v. Com., 310 Mass. 528,

552 ( 1942) ( quot i ng Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v.

Goldsboro, 232 U. S. 548, 558 ( 1914) ) . See Opinion of

the Justices to the Senate and House of

Representatives, 341 Mass. 760, 784 (1960) ( 1960

Opinion) ( The Legi sl at ur e . . . has no power t o

make, or t o del egate t he power t o make, a cont r act

whi ch i n ef f ect i s a sur r ender . . . of t he sover ei gn

power s of t he commonweal t h. ) I ndeed, [ t ] he r i ght t o

exer ci se t he pol i ce power cannot be rel i nqui shed even

by expl i ci t st i pul at i on. Id.

The J ust i ces i n t he 1960 Opinion acknowl edged the

di f f i cul t y i n dr awi ng pr eci sel y t he l i ne bet ween ( a)

t hose cont r act s bi ndi ng upon t he Commonweal t h whi ch

pr ecl ude f ut ur e l egi sl at i ve change i mpai r i ng t hei r

obl i gat i on wi t hout t he payment of compensat i on, and

( b) cont r act s whi ch invalidly pur por t t o bi nd t he

Commonweal t h not t o exerci se i t s pol i ce power. Id. at

785 ( emphasi s added) . They di d, however , make cl ear

t hat t he l at t er cat egor y i ncl udes mat t er s of gener al

r egul at i on of t he communi t y i n a manner cl osel y

r el at ed t o i t s heal t h, mor al s, saf et y, and f undament al

wel f ar e. Id. at 786. Gi ven t hi s Cour t s consi st ent

hol di ngs and st at ement s over t he past cent ur y,


31/143

- 22-

especi al l y i t s speci f i c comment s i n Chase, Boston

Elevated, Topsfield, Wolbarst, Carney I, and Carney II

about t he aut hor i t y of t he Legi sl at ur e and t he peopl e

t o r egul at e or abol i sh gambl i ng, t her e can be no doubt

t hat t he r egul at i on of gambl i ng f al l s squar el y on t he

mor al s, saf et y, and f undament al wel f ar e s i de of t he

l i ne. 10 As such, any cont r act t hat pur por t s t o l i mi t

t he Legi sl at ur e s or t he peopl e s r i ght t o make

i l l egal cer t ai n t ypes of gambl i ng i s, as t he J ust i ces

put i t i n t he 1960 Opinion, i nval i d. 1960 Opinion,

341 Mass. at 785. See also, e.g., U.S. Trust of New

York v. New Jersey, 431 U. S. 1, 23 n. 20 ( 1977) ( [ A]

St at e i s wi t hout power t o ent er i nt o bi ndi ng cont r act s

not t o exer ci se i t s pol i ce power i n t he f ut ur e. ) ;

Opinions of the Justices, 293 Mass. 589, 591, 606

( 1935) ( wher e cer t ai n pr ovi si ons of pr oposed bi l l

10 I n cont r ast , cases l i ke Dimino v. Secretary ofCom., 427 Mass. 704 ( 1998) , Opinion of the Justices,356 Mass. 775, 793- 94 ( 1969) ( t he 1969 Opinion) , andBoston Elevated, 310 Mass. at 554 upon whi ch t heAt t or ney Gener al er r oneousl y rel i ed i n denyi ngcer t i f i cat i on - f al l on t he other s i de of t he l i neest abl i shed i n t he 1960 Opinion. The char t er s orcont r act s i n t hose cases di d not pur por t t o bi nd t heCommonweal t h not t o exer ci se i t s pol i ce power s, l etal one cor e pol i ce power s. Speci f i cal l y, Dimino and

t he 1969 Opinion arose f r om t he Commonweal t h s powert o i ssue bonds t o r ai se revenue, whi l e Boston Elevatedi nvol ved t he l ocat i on and r i ght of [ a] company t oconst r uct , mai nt ai n, and oper at e an el evat ed r ai l wayst r uct ur e ther eon. 310 Mass. at 554. None of t hesecases wer e descr i bed as mat t er s . . . cl osel y r el at edt o i t s heal t h, mor al s, saf et y, and f undament alwel f ar e.


32/143

- 23-

st r et ch[ ed] beyond t he cont r act power s of t he Gener al

Cour t and r each[ed] i nt o t he domai n of powers whi ch

ar e i nal i enabl e, enact ment of subsequent l egi sl at i on

by t he Gener al Cour t . . . ot her wi se t han i n

accor dance wi t h [ t hose] pr ovi si ons woul d not vi ol at e

t he Cont r act Cl ause) .

The i nval i di t y of a cont r act t hat pur por t s t o

r est r i ct t he publ i c s r i ght t o r egul at e publ i c mor al s

and f undament al wel f ar e i s per haps best i l l ust r at ed by

t he Uni t ed St at es Supr eme Cour t s deci si on i n Stone v.

Mississippi, 101 U. S. 814 ( 1879) , a case wi t h f act s

r emar kabl y si mi l ar t o t hose at bar . I n Stone, t he

Mi ssi ssi ppi l egi sl at ur e gr ant ed a 25- year char t er t o a

l ot t er y company i n exchange f or an i ni t i al $5, 000 f ee,

an annual $1, 000 t ax, and a percent age of r ecei pt s

f r om t he sal e of t i cket s. Id. at 817. A year l at er ,

however , t hepeople adopt ed a new st at e Const i t ut i on

out l awi ng l ot t er i es. Id. at 815, 819. The hol der of

t he l ot t er y char t er ar gued t hat i t had cont r act ed wi t h

t he St at e t o oper at e a l ot t er y, and t hat t he new

Mi ssi ssi ppi Const i t ut i on vi ol at ed i t s cont r act and

t hus t he Cont r act Cl ause of t he U. S. Const i t ut i on. See

id. at 819- 20. The Supr eme Cour t wr ote, [ w] hether t he

al l eged cont r act exi st s . . . depends on t he aut hor i t y


33/143

- 24-

of t he l egi sl at ur e t o bi nd t he St at e and t he peopl e of

t he St at e i n t hat way. Id. at 817.

The Cour t r ul ed t hat no cont r act exi st ed. Id. at

819. I t hel d, f or eshadowi ng t hi s Cour t s deci si on i n

Boston Elevated and the 1960 Opinion, [n] o

l egi sl at ur e can bar gai n away t he publ i c heal t h or t he

publ i c mor al s. 11 The Supr eme Cour t concl uded:

[ a] l l t hat one can get by such a char t er i st he suspensi on of cer t ai n gover nment alr i ght s i n hi s f avor , subj ect t o wi t hdr awalat wi l l . He has i n l egal ef f ect not hi ng mor e

t han a l i cense t o enj oy the pr i vi l ege on t het er ms named f or t he speci f i ed t i me, unl essi t be sooner abr ogated by the sover ei gnpower of t he St at e. I t i s a per mi t , good asagai nst exi st i ng l aws, but subj ect t o f ut ur el egi sl at i ve and const i t ut i onal cont r ol orwi t hdr awal .

Id. at 821.

The same i s t r ue her e. J ust as t he Mi ssi ssi ppi

l egi s l at ur e i n Stone l acked t he power t o ent er i nt o a

cont r act pr event i ng t he peopl e f r om out l awi ng

l ot t er i es, t he Massachuset t s l egi sl at ur e l acked t he

power t o aut hor i ze t he MGC t o ent er i nt o a cont r act

11Stone, deci ded 125 year s ago, r emai ns good l aw as

t he cl assi c exampl e of t he r eserved powersdoctr i ne. See U.S. v. Winstar Corp., 518 U. S. 839,888 ( 1996) ( opi ni on of Sout er , J . ) ; id. at 922- 23

( Scal i a, J . , concur r i ng i n t he j udgment ) ; U.S. Trust,431 U. S. at 23 & n. 20; American Auto. Mfrs. Assn v.Massachusetts Dept. of Envtl. Protection, 163 F. 3d74, 79 n. 5 ( 1st Ci r . 1998) . That doct r i ne hol ds t hat ast at e government may not cont r act away an essent i alat t r i but e of i t s sover ei gnt y. U.S. Trust, 431 U. S. at23.


34/143

- 25-

t hat woul d pr event t he peopl e f r om enact i ng a l aw t hat

woul d bar t he MGC f r om appr ovi ng gami ng l i cense

appl i cat i ons. That i s because [ t ] her e i s no

const i t ut i onal pr ot ect i on of char t er s or cont r act s

agai nst t he val i d exer ci se of t he pol i ce power .

Massachusetts Soc. for Prevention of Cruelty to

Animals v. Commissioner of Public Health, 339 Mass.

216, 229 ( 1959) .

Accor di ngl y, any cont r act t hat pur por t ed t o bar

t he peopl e f r om enact i ng a l aw t hat woul d pr event t he

MGC f r om appr ovi ng appl i cat i ons f or casi no l i censes

af t er t he l aw s ef f ect i ve dat e woul d be i nval i d. As i t

i s axi omat i c t hat an i nval i d cont r act cannot be

i mpai r ed, t he At t or ney Gener al s deni al of

cer t i f i cat i on of t he Pet i t i on based on i mpai r ment of

an i mpl i ed cont r act wi t h Appl i cant s i s er r oneous.

B. Even if the Legislature Were Permitted To

Contract Away its Core Police Powers, The

Gaming Law Does Not Clearly Evince the

Legislatures Intent To Do So.

1. The Gaming Law does not show clearlegislative intent to bind theCommonwealth to the purported impliedcontract or to waive the Commonwealthssovereign immunity, both of which arerequisites for a contract to arise froma statute such as the Gaming Law.

For a cont r act t o ar i se f r om a st at ut e t her e

must be a clear intention of t he Legi sl at ur e t hat a

st at ut e be so i nt er pr et ed. Town of Milton v. Com.,


35/143

- 26-

416 Mass. 471, 475 (1993) ( emphasi s added) ci t i ng

Boston Elevated, 310 Mass. at 548. Thi s i nt ent i on must

be expl i ci t not onl y as t o t he creation of a cont r act ,

but i t must be accompani ed by an expl i ci t waiver of

the Commonwealths sovereign immunity. Boston Med.

Center, 463 Mass. at 459 ( [ A] cont r act ual cl ai m does

not ar i se under a stat ut e unl ess t he Legi sl at ur e has

expl i ci t l y expr essed t he i nt ent t o wai ve sover ei gn

i mmuni t y and cr eat e a cont r actual r emedy. ) Absent

such expr ess l egi sl at i ve aut hor i zat i ons, t he MGC,

r egar dl ess of whet her i t sol i ci t ed and accept ed

appl i cat i ons and t he payment of f ees t her ewi t h, l acked

t he aut hor i t y t o ent er i nt o t he i mpl i ed cont r act wi t h

t he Appl i cant s t hat t he At t or ney Gener al has pur por t ed

t o det ect . Boston v. Back Bay Cultural Assn.,

Inc., 418 Mass. 175, 184 ( 1994) ( Of f i cer s of

gover nment al agenci es have aut hor i t y to bi nd t hei r

government al bodi es onl y to t he ext ent conf err ed by

t he cont r ol l i ng st at ut e. ) ( ci t at i on omi t t ed) .

Deci si ons of t hi s Cour t demonst r at e the

speci f i ci t y of l anguage r equi r ed f or a cont r act t o

ar i se f r om a stat ut e. I n Boston Elevated, t he st at ut e

pr ovi ded t hat t he l egi sl at i ve gr ant t o a pr i vat e

company of t he r i ght t o mai nt ai n a st r eet r ai l way at a

cer t ai n l ocat i on shal l not be subj ect t o r evocat i on

except i n t he manner and on t he t erms pr escr i bed [ by


36/143

- 27-

t he st at ut e] . 310 Mass. at 545. Thi s expl i ci t

l egi sl at i ve expr essi on of i r r evocabi l i t y per suaded

t hi s Cour t t hat t he gr ant of t he l ocat i on wi t h t he

st at ut or y pr ovi si ons her ei n r ef er r ed t o agai nst

r evocat i on const i t ut ed a cont r act bet ween t he

Commonweal t h and t he company . . . . Id. at 548.

Even mor e st r ai ght f or war d was t he st atut e at

i ssue i n Opinion of the Justices, 261 Mass. 523 (1927)

( 1927 Opinion) . That st at ut e st at ed si mpl y t hat

cer t ai n of i t s pr ovi si ons shal l const i t ut e a cont r act

bi ndi ng upon t he commonweal t h. Id. at 540.

I n cont r ast , t hi s Cour t hel d t hat t he st at ut or y

l anguage i n Town of Milton was i nsuf f i ci ent t o show a

l egi sl at i ve i nt ent t o cont r act , despi t e an appar ent l y

cl ear pr omi se and i nducement t o act . The st at ut e at

i ssue st at ed, [ a] ny ci t y or t own whi ch accept s t he

pr ovi s i ons of t hi s sect i on . . . shall be reimbursed

by t he commonweal t h f or one hal f t he cost of [ cer t ai n]

payment s. Town of Milton, 416 Mass. at 472 (emphasi s

added) . Despi t e t he use of t he wor d shal l , t hi s

Cour t hel d, [ t ] he Legi sl at ur e s enact ment of [ t he

st at ut e] and t he var i ous muni ci pal i t i es accept ances

of [ i t ] di d not creat e bi ndi ng cont r act s t o pay . . .

i n t he absence of appr opr i at i on. Id. at 475. Ci t i ng

Boston Elevated as aut hor i t y f or i t s cl ear i nt ent i on

r ul e, t hi s Cour t hel d t hat a concl usi on i s not


37/143

- 28-

war r ant ed t hat t he Legi sl at ur e cl ear l y i nt ended t o

bi nd i t sel f t o make payment s accor di ng t o t he

st atut or y scheme. Id.

Here, t here i s no l anguage i n the Gami ng Law

aut hor i zi ng t he MGC t o ent er i nt o any cont r act wi t h

t he Appl i cant s, l et al one expr ess l anguage

aut hor i zi ng t he MGC t o ent er i nt o a cont r act t hat

woul d l i mi t t he Commonweal t h s aut hor i t y to enact

l egi sl at i on bar r i ng subsequent appr oval of

appl i cat i ons and i ssuance of gambl i ng l i censes.

Mor eover , t he Legi sl at ur e cl ear l y knew how t o

expr essl y aut hor i ze t he MGC t o ent er i nt o cont r act s,

because i t di d so twice i n t he Gami ng Law. 12 I t di d

not , however , make any r ef erence what soever t o t he

MGC s ent er i ng i nt o cont r act s wi t h Appl i cant s. I t i s a

set t l ed r ul e of st at ut or y const r uct i on t hat [ w] her e

t he Legi sl at ur e has empl oyed speci f i c l anguage i n one

par agr aph, but not i n anot her , t he l anguage shoul d not

be i mpl i ed wher e i t i s not pr esent . Com. v. Perella,

464 Mass. 274, 278 ( 2013) .

12 G. L. c. 23K, 71 pr ovi des, t he MGC shal l cont r actwi t h sci ent i st s and physi ci ans t o exami ne t he cur r ent

r esear ch as t o the causes f or pr obl em gambl i ng and t heheal t h ef f ect s of pr obl em gambl i ng and t he t r eat mentmethods cur r ent l y avai l abl e i n t he commonweal t h. AndSt . 2011, c. 194, 97, pr ovi des: [ t ] he MGC shal lcont r act wi t h an exper i enced nonpr of i t r esear ch ent i t yt o devel op an anonymi zi ng syst em t hat aut omat i cal l yr emoves [ cer t ai n] dat a.


38/143

- 29-

Fur t her , a cont r act ual cl ai m does not ar i se

under a st at ut e unl ess t he Legi sl at ur e has expl i ci t l y

expr essed t he i nt ent t o waive sovereign immunity and

cr eat e a cont r act ual r emedy. Boston Med. Ctr., 463

Mass. at 459. There i s no suggest i on i n t he Gami ng Law

t hat t he Legi sl at ur e expr essl y wai ved sover ei gn

i mmuni t y i f t he MGC br eached a pur por t ed i mpl i ed

cont r act . To the cont r ary, t he Gami ng Law expr essl y

pr ovi des, [ a] ppl i cant s shal l have no l egal r i ght or

pr i vi l ege t o a gami ng l i cense and shal l not be

ent i t l ed t o any f ur t her r evi ew i f deni ed by the MGC.

G. L. c. 23K, 17( g) . Gi ven t hat appl i cant s f or gami ng

l i censes appar ent l y spent si gni f i cant sums of money

pr epar i ng thei r mul t i - t housand page appl i cat i ons, 13

and, as t he At t orney General has acknowl edged, spent

money negot i at i ng wi t h host and sur r oundi ng

communi t i es and then worki ng wi t h host communi t i es t o

obt ai n bi ndi ng bal l ot vot es appr ovi ng t he host

communi t y agr eement s, 14 i t woul d be r emar kabl e i f t he

Legi sl atur e i nt ended t o expose t he Commonweal t h t o

si gni f i cant damages f or br each of an i mpl i ed cont r act

sub si l ent i o. 15

13 R. A. 59- 60, 43.

14 Id. 162, n. 8, ci t i ng G. L. c. 23K, 15 ( 8) , ( 9) , ( 13) .

15 The f oregoi ng assumes t hat t he Appl i cant s damageswoul d, as i n Paul Sardella Const. Co., Inc. v.


39/143

- 30-

2. The cases decided under the publicbidding statutes are inapposite.

The At t or ney Gener al r el i ed heavi l y on what she

decl ared was t he anal ogous cont ext of t heCommonweal t h s publ i c bi ddi ng l aws f or t he concl usi on

t hat an i mpl i ed cont r act arose between the MGC and

Appl i cant s. That r el i ance was mi spl aced.

Fi r st , t he i mpl i ed cont r act f ound i n Sardella

af f orded a remedy t o a bi dder who was i nj ur ed by t he

awar di ng aut hor i t y s vi ol at i on of t he compet i t i ve

bi ddi ng st at ut e . . . . 3 Mass. App. Ct . at 332. 16 Her e,

i f t he l aw pr oposed by t he Pet i t i on passes, t he MGC

woul d be bound t o appl y i t t o any pendi ng

Braintree Housing Authority, 3 Mass. App. Ct . 326, 334-35 ( 1975) , affd, 371 Mass. 235 ( 1976) , be l i mi t ed t obi d pr epar at i on cost s. I f t hey wer e not so l i mi t ed, asi n Bradford & Bigelow, Inc. v. Com., 24 Mass. App. Ct .

349, 358- 59 ( 1987) , per haps i f t her e wer e a f i ndi ng ofbad f ai t h, t he appl i cant s coul d pr esumabl y seek t or ecover l ost pr of i t s. As each of t he r emai ni ngappl i cant s f or a casi no i n Regi on A pr oj ect s gami ngr evenue i n t he f i r st f i ve year s of $44. 5 bi l l i on ( seeR. A. 49- 50, 28 and R. A. 53- 54, 34) , t he l i censeei n j ust Regi on A pr esumabl y coul d cl ai m many bi l l i onsof dol l ar s i n l ost pr of i t s over t he f i f t een- year l i f eof t he l i cense.

16 The pur pose of t he publ i c bi ddi ng l aws i s t o set upa pr ocess by whi ch t he government can f ai r l y andeconomi cal l y enter into contracts wi t h pr i vat e par t i es

t o car r y out const r uct i on pr oj ect s. See InterstateEngineering Corp. v. Fitchburg, 367 Mass. 751, 757- 58( 1975) ( f i ndi ng t hat t he t wo . . . l egi sl at i veobj ect i ves under l yi ng t he compet i t i ve bi ddi ng st at ut ear e t o obt ai n t he l owest pr i ce f or i t s wor k and t oest abl i sh[ ] an honest and open pr ocedur e f orcompet i t i on f or publ i c cont r act s) .


40/143

- 31-

appl i cat i ons. Selectmen of Topsfield, 324 Mass. at 314

( [ a] change made i n the l aw pendi ng the appl i cat i on

f or a per mi t or a l i cense r at her t han t he l aw exi st i ng

at t he t i me of f i l i ng i s t o gover n act i on on t he

appl i cat i on . . . ) . Accor di ngl y, t he MGC s

i mpl ement at i on of t he pr oposed l aw woul d not vi ol ate

t he st at ut e, and t hus woul d not vi ol at e any i mpl i ed

cont r act i n ef f ect at t he t i me of t he deci si on.

Second, Town of Milton hei ght ened t he l evel of

cl ar i t y wi t h whi ch t he Legi sl at ur e must expr ess an

i nt ent i on to bi nd the Commonweal t h to a cont r act . See

Hollstein v. Contributory Retirement Appeal Bd., 47

Mass. App. Ct . 109, 114 ( 1999) . Even assumi ng that

Sardella appar ent l y t he f i r st deci si on aut hor i zi ng a

sui t f or damages under t he publ i c bi ddi ng l aws i s

st i l l good l aw af t er Town of Milton, 17 t he Gami ng Law

and t he publ i c bi ddi ng st at ut es ar e r eadi l y

di st i ngui shabl e f r om each ot her on a basi s t he

At t orney General has acknowl edged18 and t he Appeal s

Cour t f ound mater i al j ust a f ew mont hs ago i n Mello

Const., Inc. v. Division of Capital Asset Management,

17 Thi s Cour t does not seem t o have rendered anydeci si ons si nce Town of Milton addr essi ng whetherSardella r emai ns good l aw.

18 R. A. 159 ( The [ MGC] enj oys a gr eat deal moredi scr et i on i n t he awar d of l i censes t han does a publ i ccont r act i ng aut hor i t y i n t he awar d of a cont r act . )


41/143

- 32-

84 Mass. App. Ct . 625 ( 2013) , rev. denied, 467 Mass .

1103 (2014) .

I n Mello, t he Appeal s Cour t af f i r med di smi ssal of

a cont r actor s compl ai nt f or monetary damages agai nst

t he Di vi si on of Capi t al Asset Management and

Mai nt enance ar i si ng f r om DCAM s deni al of

cer t i f i cat i on t o bi d on publ i c const r ucti on pr oj ects.

Id. at 629. I t di st i ngui shed t he Sardella l i ne of

cases al l owi ng di sappoi nt ed l ow bi dder s depr i ved of

r i ght s enumer at ed i n t he publ i c bi ddi ng st at ut es t o

seek t o r ecover bi d pr epar at i on cost s and l ost pr of i t s

on t he basi s t hat [ n] one i nvol ved a di scr et i onar y

cer t i f i cat i on deci s i on . . . Id. at 629, n. 10.

The publ i c bi ddi ng l aws r equi r ement s ar e

ext ensi ve and det ai l ed; t hey af f or d i ssuer s l i t t l e or

no di scret i on. See, e.g., G. L. c. 149, 44A( 2) ( D)

and 44D. I n cont r ast , t he Gami ng Law grant s t he MGC

br oad di scr et i on i n mul t i pl e key sect i ons of t he

stat ut e. See, e.g., G. L. c. 23K, 17( g) and 18. See

also G. L. c. 23K, 3( l ) , 30( e) and 61( b) . Per haps

most i mpor t ant l y, i t speci f i cal l y gr ant s t he MGC

di scr et i on i n deci di ng bot h whether and, i f so, to

whom, t o i ssue a l i cense. G. L. c. 23K, 17( g) and

18.

Fi nal l y, a di sappoi nt ed appl i cant f or a publ i c

const r ucti on cont r act i s ent i t l ed t o j udi ci al r evi ew


42/143

- 33-

i f i t s bi d i s not sel ect ed because of an al l eged

f ai l ur e t o compl y st r i ct l y wi t h t he publ i c bi ddi ng

stat ut es. See, e .g . , Phipps Products Corp. v.

Massachusetts Bay Transp. Authority, 387 Mass. 687

( 1982) ; Cataldo Ambulance Service, Inc. v. Chelsea, 43

Mass. App. Ct . 26 ( 1997) . The Gami ng Law does not permi t

such r evi ew. I t st at es, [ a] ppl i cant s shal l have no

l egal r i ght or pr i vi l ege t o a gami ng l i cense and shal l

not be ent i t l ed t o any f ur t her r evi ew i f deni ed by the

commi ssi on. G. L. c. 23K, 17( g) . Quer y t he exi st ence

or t er ms of a cont r act t hat af f or ds a di sappoi nt ed

appl i cant no revi ew.

III. EVEN IF THERE IS AN IMPLIED CONTRACT BETWEEN THE

MGC AND APPLICANTS, THE PROPOSED LAW WOULD NOT

CAUSE AN IMPAIRMENT THEREOF.

Havi ng di scerned an i mpl i ed cont r act i n whi ch t he

MGC, i n r et ur n f or each Appl i cant s submi ssi on of anappl i cat i on and payment of t he appl i cat i on f ee and

possi bl e sur char ges, was obl i ged t o consi der and act

upon t he appl i cat i ons, t he At t or ney Gener al r easoned:

( 1) t hat t he pr oposed l aw, i f enact ed, woul d br each

t hat cont r act ; ( 2) t hat t he MGC coul d successf ul l y

def end on t he basi s of i mpossi bi l i t y,

i mpr act i cabi l i t y, or t he l aw of unj ust enr i chment ; and

( 3) t he resul t i ng deni al of a damages r emedy woul d

mean t hat t he pr oposed l aw woul d i mpai r t he i mpl i ed

cont r act . R. A. 160- 61. Thi s r easoni ng i s er r oneous.


43/143

- 34-

A. The MGC Would Not Breach Any Implied

Contract by Complying with the Law Proposed

by the Petition.

The l aw pr oposed by t he Pet i t i on woul d prohi bi t

t he MGC f r omappr ovi ng any appl i cat i ons f or gami ng

l i censes on or af t er t he l aw s ef f ect i ve dat e. R. A.

152, 2. Thus, i n t he ver y unl i kel y event t hat t her e

are any appl i cat i ons on whi ch MGC has not made i t s

f i nal determi nat i ons by December 4, 2014, t he new l aw

woul d pr ospect i vel y i mpose a new subst ant i ve r ul e on

t he MGC.

Assumi ng t he MGC woul d obey t he new l aw, t he

MGC s i mpl ement at i on of i t t o al l l i cense appl i cat i on

det er mi nat i ons made af t er i t s ef f ect i ve dat e woul d not

r esul t i n a br each of cont r act . As not ed above, [ a]

change made i n t he l aw pendi ng t he appl i cat i on f or a

per mi t or a l i cense r at her t han t he l aw exi st i ng att he t i me of f i l i ng i s t o gover n act i on on t he

appl i cat i on . . . . Selectmen of Topsfield, 324 Mass.

at 314. Thi s r ul e appl i es t o gambl i ng est abl i shment s,

see id. at 310- 12 ( st at ut e enact ed after a company

appl i ed t o t he St at e Raci ng Commi ssi on f or a l i cense

t o conduct har ness r aci ng pr event ed t he raci ng

commi ssi on f r om act i ng on t he appl i cat i on) , and i n

ot her cont ext s as wel l . 19 Thus, even i f , as t he

19 See, e.g, Spector v. Building Inspector of Milton, 250Mass. 63, 71 ( 1924) ( The f act t hat t he pet i t i oner f i l ed


44/143

- 35-

At t or ney Gener al posi t s, Appl i cant s have an i mpl i ed

cont r act ual r i ght t o Commi ssi on act i on on t hei r

appl i cat i ons in accordance with statutory and

regulatory criteria, 20 t he r ul e of Selectmen of

Topsfield woul d r equi r e t he MGC t o revi ew t he

appl i cat i ons i n accor dance wi t h t he l aw i n ef f ect at

t he t i me of deci si on, not t he l aw i n ef f ect at t he

t i me the appl i cat i ons wer e submi t t ed. Wi t h r espect t o

any appl i cat i ons pendi ng when t he l aw pr oposed by t he

Pet i t i on t akes ef f ect , t he MGC woul d t hus be complying

with any contract by appl yi ng t he new l aw and not

appr ovi ng any appl i cat i ons; i t woul d t hus not br each,

and coul d not possi bl y i mpai r , any i mpl i ed cont r act .

hi s appl i cat i on f or a [ bui l di ng] per mi t bef or e t he zoni ngby- l aw was enact ed i s no r eason why i t [ t he by- l aw] shoul dnot be hel d appl i cabl e t o hi m f r om and af t er i t becameoper at i ve. The pet i t i oner hel d hi s pr oper t y subj ect at al lt i mes t o ever y val i d exer ci se of t he pol i ce power . Thef i l i ng of hi s appl i cat i on gave hi m no vest ed r i ght s. ) ;City of Salem v. Maynes, 123 Mass. 372, 374 ( 1877) ( Thef act s t hat , bef or e the passage of t he or di nance, t he

def endant s had begun work on t he cel l ar upon t he si t e oft he pr oposed bui l di ng, and had made a cont r act betweent hemsel ves f or t he er ect i on of t he bui l di ng, and had boughtand pr epar ed l umber t o car r y out t hat cont r act , does notexempt t hem f r om t he oper at i on of t he or di nance. ) .

20 R. A. 160 ( emphasi s i n or i gi nal ) .


45/143

- 36-

B. If the MGCs Application of the Proposed Law

Did Constitute a Breach of an Implied

Contract, the Applicants Would Have a Claim

for Damages.

The At t or ney Gener al asser t s t hat no damages

r emedy woul d be avai l abl e t o Appl i cant s because of t he

doctr i nes of i mpossi bi l i t y and i mpr acti cabi l i t y. R. A.

163- 64. But t hose doct r i nes appl y onl y i f per f or mance

becomes i mpossi bl e f r om t he acci dent al per i shi ng of

t he t hi ng [ t he par t i es cont empl at ed the cont i nued

exi st ence of ] without the fault of either party.

Chase Precast Corp. v. John J. Paonessa Co., Inc., 409

Mass. 371, 373 ( 1991) ( emphasi s added) . Her e, i f t he

Pet i t i on passes, and i f t he MGC br eached any i mpl i ed

cont r act by appl yi ng t he new l aw, t he Commonweal t h

woul d be at f aul t f or enact i ng t he new l aw. I t woul d

t hus be unabl e t o asser t i mpossi bi l i t y or

i mpr act i cabi l i t y as a def ense t o a sui t f or br each ofcont r act agai nst t he MGC.

The At t or ney Gener al al so er r s i n di scount i ng an

Appl i cant s cl ai m f or r est i t ut i on under a t heor y of

unj ust enr i chment . To pr evai l on a cl ai m of unj ust

enr i chment , t he Appl i cant s must demonst r ate ( 1) a

benef i t [ of money or pr oper t y of anot her ] conf er r ed

upon t he [ MGC] by the[m] ; ( 2) an appr eci at i on or

knowl edge by t he [ MGC] of t he benef i t ; and

( 3) accept ance or r et ent i on by the [ MGC] of t he


46/143

- 37-

benef i t under such ci r cumst ances as t o make i t

i nequi t abl e f or t he def endant t o r et ai n t he benef i t

wi t hout payment of i t s val ue. 21 The At t orney General

does not mai nt ai n that t he Appl i cant s woul d not be

abl e t o sat i sf y t he f i r st t wo of t hese el ement s.

I nst ead, she ar gues t hat t he MGC s r et ent i on of moni es

i t had al r eady spent woul d not be unj ust . R. A. 161- 62.

Cont r ar y t o t he At t or ney Gener al s vi ew,

det er mi nat i on of i nequi t y or i nj ust i ce does not

t ur n on a j udge s sense of f ai r ness; i nst ead, i t

t ur ns on t he r easonabl e expect at i ons of t he par t i es. 22

For exampl e, i n anal yzi ng t hi s t hi r d el ement i n

Salamon, 394 Mass. at 859- 60, t hi s Cour t consi der ed

whether ei t her part y shoul d have reasonabl y expected

t hat t he def endant woul d pay f or t he val ue of

par t i al l y compl et ed houses on hi s l and.

Her e, t he moni es pai d by t he Appl i cant s t o the

MGC may be di vi ded i nt o two cat egor i es: moni es al r eady

spent by t he MGC i n i nvest i gat i ng t he Appl i cant s and

21 Fort Point Commercial Co., Inc. v. Spiegel, 28Mass. L. Rpt r . 339, 2011 WL 1758950, *9 ( Mass. Super .2011) ( quot i ng Mass. Eye and Ear Infirmary v. QLTPhototherapeutics, Inc., 552 F. 3d 47, 57 ( 1st Ci r .2009) . See Tyler v. Michaels Stores, Inc., 840

F. Supp. 2d 438, 451 ( D. Mass. 2012) ( same) .22 Community Builders, Inc. v. Indian MotorcycleAssociates, Inc., 44 Mass. App. Ct . 537, 560 ( 1998)( The benef i t must be unjust, a qual i t y t hat t ur ns ont he r easonabl e expect at i ons of t he par t i es. ) ( ci t i ngSalamon v. Terra, 394 Mass. 857, 859 ( 1985) ) .


47/143

- 38-

t hei r appl i cat i ons or di st r i but ed t o pot ent i al host

communi t i es, and moni es not yet spent . As t o t he

f or mer , t he money was spent pr i mar i l y on sui t abi l i t y

det ermi nat i ons. The MGC has compl et ed t hose

det er mi nat i ons, 23 and t hose Appl i cants t he MGC f ound

sui t abl e have t her eby r ecei ved a benef i t f r om t hem,

r egar dl ess of whet her t hey ul t i mat el y r ecei ve a

l i cense. 24 As t he money was spent and the Appl i cant s

r ecei ved a benef i t f r om i t , t hey shoul d not r easonabl y

expect t he MGC t o pay i t back.

As t o moni es t he MGC has not yet spent , nei t her

par t y shoul d r easonabl y expect t he MGC t o r etai n t hose

f unds i f t her e wer e an i mpl i ed cont r act r equi r i ng t he

MGC t o revi ew appl i cat i ons t hat t he MGC br eached. The

23 Thi s i s t r ue except f or KG i n Regi on C, whi ch di dnot submi t i t s Phase 1 appl i cat i on unt i l Sept ember 30,

2013. However , because t he Commi ssi on has set adeadl i ne of J ul y 23, 2014 f or t he submi ssi on of Phase2 appl i cat i ons f or a casi no l i cense i n Regi on C ( R. A.58- 59, 42) , and si nce a sui t abi l i t y f i ndi ng i s apr er equi si t e t o maki ng such an appl i cat i on, i t i shi ghl y l i kel y t he MGC wi l l compl et e i t s sui t abi l i t ydetermi nat i on f or KG i n advance presumabl y wel l i nadvance of t hat deadl i ne.

24 The r i gor ous nat ur e of t he MGC s sui t abi l i t yi nvest i gat i ons, whi ch i ncl ude st af f r epor t s t hatt ypi cal l y ar e hundr eds of pages l ong, and Commi ss i ondet er mi nat i ons t ypi cal l y based upon adj udi cat or y

hear i ngs, make a MGC sui t abi l i t y det er mi nat i on apot ent i al l y ver y val uabl e r ef er ence and sel l i ng poi ntt o an appl i cant seeki ng t o operate gami ngest abl i shment s el sewher e. See G. L. c. 23K, 12; 205C. M. R. Par t s 111- 117. See also, e.g., R. A. 45- 48, 21- 25; R. A. 49- 52, 36- 37, 42, and R. A. 343- 75and 384- 411.


48/143

- 39-

par t i es woul d reasonabl y have expect ed t he MGC t o be

r equi r ed t o pay such amount s back t o the Appl i cant s. 25

Based on t he f oregoi ng, t he Appl i cant s woul d have a

vi abl e damages r emedy. Accor di ngl y, t here woul d be no

i mpai r ment .

IV. THE PROPOSED LAW WILL NOT RESULT IN A TAKING OFPRIVATE PROPERTY OF GAMING LICENSE APPLICANTS.

Even i f an appl i cant coul d asser t a cl ai m f or

br each of an i mpl i ed cont r act but not r ecover damages,

t her e woul d st i l l need t o be a t aki ng. 26

25 The MGC has al r eady si gnal ed as much as t o t hel i cense f ees. I t s r egul at i ons had sai d t hat l i censef ees wer e non- r ef undabl e, but i t r ecent l y f i l ed anemergency amendment t o t hose r egul at i ons del et i ng thewor d non- r ef undabl e. Compare Massachuset t s Regi st erNumber 1256 dat ed Mar ch 14, 2014 amendi ng 205 C. M. R.121. 01( 1) and ( 2) , ef f ect i ve Febr uar y 24, 2014, wi t h205 C. M. R. 121. 01 and ( 2) bef ore Febr uary 24, 2014.

26 The At t or ney Gener al s concl usi on t hat , i f t he

appl i cant s coul d not r ecover damages, t he pr oposed l awwoul d i mpai r t he Obl i gat i on of Cont r act s i nvi ol at i on of t he Cont r act Cl ause, U. S. Const . , ar t . I , 10, cl . 1, i s bot h er r oneous and i napposi t e. Thef i r st quest i on i n Cont r act Cl ause anal ysi s i s whet hert her e i s a contractual obligation t hat t he chal l engedl aw woul d af f ect , see U.S. Trust, 431 U. S. at 17- 18,23- 25. Par t I I of t hi s br i ef demonst r at es t hat t her ei s no cont r act ual obl i gat i on her e because t he Gener alCour t , i n enact i ng t he Gami ng Law, had nei t her t heaut hor i t y nor t he i nt ent i on t o bi nd t he Commonweal t hnot t o exer ci se i t s pol i ce power i n t hi s manner i n t hef ut ur e. Mor eover , a vi ol at i on of t he Cont r act Cl ause

woul d not , as a mat t er of l aw, const i t ut e a t aki ngof pr i vat e pr oper t y to publ i c use under ar t . 10 of t heDecl ar at i on of Ri ght s so as t o come wi t hi n t he scopeof excl uded mat t er s as def i ned i n Ar t . 48, I ni t . ,Pt . 2, 2. Bowe v. Secretary of the Com., 320 Mass .230, 247 ( 1946) ; Horton v. Attorney General, 269 Mass.503, 513 ( 1930) .


49/143

- 40-

I n Carney II, t hi s Cour t r ej ect ed cl ai ms by the

owner of a dog r aci ng t r ack, who had a l ong hi st or y of

i nvest ment i n t he t r ack s oper at i on and r enewal s of

i t s l i censes, t hat an i ni t i at i ve pet i t i on t o ban dog

r aci ng woul d r esul t i n a t aki ng of t hei r r easonabl e

expect at i on of t he cont i nued r enewal of t hei r

l i censes. 451 Mass. at 816. Her e, mer e applicants fo r

a gami ng l i cense have no such st at us as l i censee, no

l egal r i ght t o a l i cense, and no r easonabl e

expect at i on, i n t hi s ver y heavi l y r egul at ed i ndust r y,

t o the mai nt enance of a st at ut or y and r egul at or y

st at us quo. They have no pr i vat e pr oper t y i nt er est i n

t he MGC s act i ng upon t hei r appl i cat i on under

super seded st at ut or y st andar ds, and none of t he thr ee

pr ongs of t he f ami l i ar t est gover ni ng r egul at or y

t aki ngs set f or t h i n Penn Cent. Transp. Co. v. New

York City, 438 U. S. 104, 124 ( 1978) , suppor t s t he

At t or ney Gener al s concl usi on t hat pr ohi bi t i ng t he MGC

f r omappr ovi ng new casi no and sl ot s par l or gami ng

l i censes af t er t he pr oposed l aw t akes ef f ect woul d

somehow depr i ve l i cense appl i cant s of t hei r pr i vat e

pr oper t y.

Cour t s have devel oped a t wo- st ep test t o eval uat e

cl ai ms t hat a gover nment al r egul at i on const i t ut es a

t aki ng of pr i vat e pr oper t y wi t hout j ust compensat i on.

Fi r st , as a t hr eshol d mat t er , t he cour t must det er mi ne


50/143

- 41-

whether t he cl ai mant has est abl i shed a cogni zabl e

pr oper t y i nt er est . 27 American Pelagic Fishing Co., L.P.

v. U.S., 379 F. 3d 1363, 1372 ( Fed. Ci r . 2004) . I f t he

cl ai mant f ai l s t o demonst r at e t he exi st ence of a

l egal l y cogni zabl e pr oper t y i nt er est , t he cour t s t ask

i s at an end. Id. Second, i f t he cour t f i nds t hat a

pr oper t y i nt er est does exi st , i t must det er mi ne

whet her a compensabl e t aki ng occur r ed. Maritrans Inc.

v. U.S., 342 F. 3d 1344, 1351 ( Fed. Ci r . 2003) ; Conti

v. U.S., 291 F. 3d 1334, 1339 ( Fed. Ci r . 2002) . Nei t her

step i s sat i sf i ed her e.

A. Applicants Have No Compensable PropertyInterest In the MGCs Consideration Of andAction Upon Their Applications.

Appl i cant s f or a gami ng l i cense do not have a

r i ght t o a l i cense under c. 23K even i f t hey meet t he

mi ni mum st atut ory r equi r ement s. The Gami ng Law permi t s

t he Commi ssi on t o i ssue at most f our l i censes and i t

need not i ssue any at al l . G. L. c. 23K, 17( g) ,

19( a) , and 20( a) . The Gami ng Law al so expr essl y

pr ovi des: The Commi ssi on shal l have f ul l di scr et i on

as t o whet her t o i ssue a l i cense. Applicants shall

27 Whi l e the exi st ence of a pr oper t y i nt er est may gi vet he hol der a r i ght t o a pr e- depr i vat i on hear i ng as amat t er of pr ocedur al due pr ocess, t hat does notnecessar i l y mean t hat t he i nt er est i s of a ki nd t hatent i t l es t he owner t o compensat i on under t he t aki ngscl ause of t he Fi f t h Amendment t o t he Uni t ed St atesConst i t ut i on or ar t . 10 of t he Massachuset t sDecl ar at i on of Ri ght s. Carney II, 451 Mass. at 815.


51/143

- 42-

have no legal right or privilege to a gaming license

and shal l not be ent i

Anti-casino faction files 1st legal brief in Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Case

Documents