Wisconsin Online Sports Betting Bill Faces Constitutional Challenge

However, the measure has drawn strong opposition, primarily from a conservative legal group that argues the plan attempts to bypass the state constitution and federal law. Democratic Governor Tony Evers is expected to sign the bill if it passes the legislature and secures agreement from Wisconsin’s tribes.

The “Hub-and-Spoke” Mechanism

The state constitution generally prohibits most forms of gambling outside of sovereign Tribal lands. To work within this restriction, the bill proposes an approach based on where a bet is legally defined as taking place.

Under this model, the “hub” is a server physically located on Tribal property. The “spokes” are the state’s residents who place wagers via mobile devices statewide. Proponents argue the law only clarifies the location of the wager, not the authorization of gambling itself. They claim a wager is legally completed only when the Tribal server accepts the proposed bet.

Since the acceptance happens on Tribal land, supporters say the system aligns with existing tribal gaming compacts dating back to the 1990s. This legal approach mirrors a federal court ruling in Florida that upheld a compact allowing the Seminole Nation to run an online sports betting system.

Legal Objections to Constitutional Compliance

The proposed framework faces a major challenge from the Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty (WILL). The conservative legal organization claims the bill illegally expands a “broken, unlawful statewide gambling system.” WILL argues that the state Assembly cannot authorize gambling, with few exceptions.

According to WILL, the attempt to “decriminalize” online bets violates Article IV of the state constitution. They believe that changing this policy requires a constitutional amendment approved by the people of Wisconsin, not merely a legislative act.

Furthermore, WILL suggests the bill would violate the federal Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) because sports betting has never been generally legal under Wisconsin state law. The group warns that changing the law to create a tribal monopoly risks the entire existing gambling structure in the state.

Opposing Arguments on Tribal Rights and Monopoly

WILL also argues that the bill creates an unconstitutional monopoly for the Tribes across the state. They claim that granting tribes the exclusive right to statewide wagering violates the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution by establishing a racial preference.

In defense, a lawyer hired by the Forest County Potawatomi Community has challenged WILL’s legal analysis. The lawyer, Ryan Walsh, asserted the bill and its related compacts do not violate the U.S. or Wisconsin Constitutions and would withstand a legal challenge.

Walsh cited U.S. Supreme Court and Appeals Court precedent. These rulings state that state laws “rationally related to the furtherance of federal policy toward Indian tribes” do not violate the Equal Protection Clause.

Economic Concerns and Market Regulation

Beyond the constitutional fight, the bill faces an economic obstacle from the Sports Betting Alliance (SBA). This group represents major national operators like DraftKings and FanDuel. The SBA rejects the current draft because it requires operators partnering with the Tribes to hand over 60% of gross mobile sports betting revenue to the Tribes.

A representative from the SBA called the 60% revenue share “economically unfeasible.” They argue that online sports betting is a “low margin, capital-intensive business.” This high revenue share makes it impossible for national brands to enter the Wisconsin market.

Supporters of the bill maintain that the legislation provides “clarity, not expansion.” They point out that roughly $1 billion is bet annually on illegal offshore sites or by consumers traveling out-of-state to Illinois. The bill aims to redirect this activity to a regulated, Wisconsin-based environment. They argue that a lack of action would allow national prediction platforms, like Kalshi and Polymarket, to fill the “gray zone” without state oversight, compact frameworks, or consumer safeguards. The ultimate goal is to protect consumers and Tribal sovereignty while keeping revenue within Wisconsin.