Miss. court bars casino race bets in Imperial Palace case

JACKSON, Miss. -- State law bars Mississippi casino patrons from betting on horse and dog races, the Mississippi Supreme Court ruled Thursday.

In a decision sought by the gaming industry and regulators, the Supreme Court said that if lawmakers had wanted to exempt race books from the 1990 law's prohibition on betting on off-premises events, they would have done so.

"However, as it stands, the Legislature provided no exemptions to the blanket prohibition against betting on off-site events," Justice Fred Banks wrote in the 6-3 decision.

The Gaming Commission had appealed a 1997 chancery court ruling that would have led to pari-mutuel betting in casinos.

Imperial Palace sued the commission for permission to operate a race book after regulators rejected a request in July 1997. Harrison County Chancery Judge J.N. Randall ruled in the casino's favor Aug. 11, 1997.

However, Randall said sections of the state Gaming Control Act were contradictory in reference to the issue.

For regulators, clearing up those contradictions was the purpose of the appeal. For Imperial Palace, clearing up those contradictions would have meant an added attraction to bring in patrons to its gambling house and the 29 others in the state.

The closest horse and dog race tracks to Mississippi are in Alabama, Louisiana and Arkansas. An off-track betting parlor in Mound, La., offers simulcasts of races.

Britt Singletary, the attorney for Imperial Palace, said Thursday he was surprised by the ruling. Singletary said that during debate on the gaming law, legislators had voted down an amendment that would have barred horse betting.

"Legislative intent was a large part of the issue. It seemed a little odd that the court decided to ignore that," Singletary said. "That's why we felt we had a strong case."

He said Imperial Palace planned for simulcast of the horse or dog races over large screen televisions with bets placed prior to the races. He said Imperial Palace has had success with the race-book at its Las Vegas casino.

Singletary said the off-track betting is not a big money-maker for a casino, but another amenity to attract customers.

The issues of horse race betting and wagering on sporting events were ones lawmakers did not extensively explore during the debate on legalizing casinos in 1990. Anti-gambling forces claimed they were told the state would not allow betting on sporting events, such as college football.

However, what surfaced during the trial of Imperial Palace's lawsuit was the ambiguity in the law, which the Supreme Court was asked to clear up.

One section of the act states a casino "may establish a sports pool or race book on the premises . . . (with) permission" from the Gaming Commission. But another section prohibits wagering "on the outcome of any event which does not take place on the premises."

Justice Banks, writing for the court, said there were conflicts in the law. However, Banks said it was clear that lawmakers did not intend to allow casinos to offer off-track betting.

Banks said the guiding provision in the 1990 law is that it prohibited "any event which does not take place on the premises."

Presiding Justice Edwin Lloyd Pittman and two other justices disagreed with the decision.

Pittman said the law grants casinos the right to seek permission from the Gaming Commission to establish a race book. He said that specific law outweighs the general prohibition cited in the decision.

archive