Case Explained: Wichita and Affiliated Tribes v. Stitt

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit Filed: 2026-06-23 Docket: 5:19-CV-01198-D) The tenth-circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the Wichita and Affiliated Tribes’ claim for liquidated damages under Part 11.E of the 2006 gaming compact, holding that such a claim constitutes a retroactive monetary award barred by the State of Oklahoma’s Eleventh Amendment immunity. The court ruled that the *Ex parte Young* exception does not apply because the relief sought was compensatory damages for a past breach rather than prospective injunctive or declaratory relief regarding ongoing federal law violations. Regarding the Tribe’s remaining claim for a declaratory judgment excusing it from paying exclusivity fees under Part 11.A, the court held that the Tribe possessed Article III standing to sue the Governor in his official capacity. The court determined that causation was satisfied because the Governor’s signing of legislation allegedly violating the Compact fairly traced the Tribe’s monetary injury, and redressability was established because a declaratory judgment would have issue-preclusive effect against nonparty state officials (such as the State Treasurer) who possess enforcement authority over the Compact fees. On the merits of the exclusivity-fee claim, the court reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the Governor, finding that the phrase “additional electronic or machine gaming” in Part 11.A is ambiguous because it is reasonably susceptible to conflicting interpretations regarding whether it refers strictly to “covered games” defined in the Compact or carries a broader plain meaning. The court remanded the case with directions to vacate the summary judgment and resolve the ambiguity, permitting the district court to consult extrinsic evidence to determine the parties’ intent. Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.