- Status
- Dismissed (dismissed)
- As of
- 21 Jun 2017 · read from the court record
- Court
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Appellate court
- Docket
- D. Conn. 3:15-cv-01182 (AWT); 2d Cir. 16-2158-cv
- Judge
- Alvin W. Thompson (D. Conn.); Walker, Sack, Chin (2d Cir.)
- Filed
- Aug 2015
- Type
- Constitutional challenge, licensing and administrative court cases
- Money
- No settlement fund or award on record
- Payout
- No payout exists as of 14 Nov 2026
Status words follow the court record: a complaint states one side's allegations, only the court's orders decide anything. Filing a settlement claim is always free.
What this case is about
MGM, building MGM Springfield across the border, attacked Connecticut's tribal-only casino siting law. The Second Circuit (861 F.3d 40, 21 June 2017, amended 2 August 2017) affirmed dismissal for lack of standing: MGM alleged no concrete plan to build in Connecticut and its Massachusetts exclusivity barred most Connecticut sites, so any competitive injury was speculative.
What this case is about
MGM Resorts International Global Gaming Development, LLC v. Malloy is a Second Circuit appeal (16-2158-cv) from the District of Connecticut (3:15-cv-01182) in which MGM challenged Connecticut's tribal-only casino siting law. MGM was building MGM Springfield across the border in Massachusetts.
MGM sued in August 2015 Governor Dannel P. Malloy, Secretary of the State Denise Merrill and Commissioner of Consumer Protection Jonathan A. Harris. It argued that Special Act 15-7 violates Equal Protection and the dormant Commerce Clause, because the Act let only the Mashantucket Pequot and Mohegan tribes pursue a commercial casino.
The case is one of the Licensing and Administrative Court Cases in the record.
Who is covered
The ruling concerns commercial casino siting in Connecticut and the standing of out-of-state operators to challenge it. It does not cover players, and no class exists.
The plaintiff was a casino developer, and the defendants were three Connecticut officials. Other state matters are in Gambling Lawsuits in Connecticut.
Is there a payout?
No payout exists in this case. MGM challenged a statute, and the record shows no fund, damages award or settlement.
There is no claim to file and no deadline. The litigation was about who may build a commercial casino in Connecticut, so no money was ordered to anyone.
What the court decided
The Second Circuit heard argument on November 28, 2016 and decided the appeal on June 21, 2017 (861 F.3d 40), with an amended opinion on August 2, 2017. The panel of Judges Walker, Sack and Chin affirmed the dismissal ordered by Judge Alvin W. Thompson for lack of standing.
MGM alleged no concrete plan to build in Connecticut. Its Massachusetts exclusivity also barred it from most Connecticut sites, so any competitive injury was speculative.
The ruling turned on whether MGM could sue, and the case is recorded as dismissed. No later step is listed as of November 14, 2026.
Why it matters
The record classes the decision as a precedent on standing. A competitor that challenges a state's casino law must show a concrete injury, such as a real plan to enter the market.
The case also shows how a challenge can fail before the law itself is examined. The courts treated MGM's Connecticut plans as too uncertain to count as an injury, so the Equal Protection and dormant Commerce Clause arguments were not decided.
Similar disputes between operators and states are collected in Operators Against Regulators and States.
Questions people ask
Why did MGM lose its challenge to the Connecticut casino law?
MGM lost because the courts found it lacked standing. It alleged no concrete plan to build in Connecticut, and its Massachusetts exclusivity barred most Connecticut sites.
Did the court decide whether Special Act 15-7 is constitutional?
The Second Circuit affirmed dismissal for lack of standing, so the ruling turned on whether MGM could bring the claim. The decision is recorded as a dismissal.
Who is involved
Plaintiffs: MGM Resorts International Global Gaming Development, LLC
| Defendants | Dannel P. Malloy, Governor; Denise Merrill, Secretary of the State; Jonathan A. Harris, Commissioner of Consumer Protection |
|---|---|
| Judge | Alvin W. Thompson (D. Conn.); Walker, Sack, Chin (2d Cir.) |
| Claims |
|
Is there a payout?
No payout exists in this case as of 14 Nov 2026.
What happens next
No future date is on the record we hold. The case is closed on the record we hold; later appeals or enforcement steps would be added here.
Timeline
2 dated steps on record, oldest first. Future dates come from court notices and can move.
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Aug 2015 | Filed |
| 21 Jun 2017 | Dismissed |
Documents and sources
2 primary sources (court file, administrator notice, regulator) and 1 secondary. Press is supporting evidence only.
- Court document: ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov
- Court document: law.justia.com (law-firm page, not linked)
| What it supports | Source | Type | Retrieved |
|---|---|---|---|
| citation 861 F.3d 40, decision and amendment dates, standing holding | law.justia.com (law-firm page, not linked) | n/a | 14 Nov 2026 |
| argued 28 Nov 2016, decided 21 June 2017, amended 2 Aug 2017; appeal from D. Conn. No. 3:15 Civ. 1182 (Alvin W. Thompson, J.); panel Walker, Sack, Chin; affirmed dismissal for lack of standing | ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov | primary | 14 Nov 2026 |
| caption | ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov | primary | 14 Nov 2026 |
Last checked against the sources on 14 Nov 2026. Found an error? Tell us and we correct the record with a dated note.