June 10, 2026 – The Wisconsin Legislature empowered the state’s 11 federally recognized Indian Tribes to conduct mobile sports betting.

It will take more than 2025 Wis. Act 247 to legally place a bet on your smartphone.

The governor and the Tribes must agree to revisions to Indian gaming compacts. Tribal governments need ordinances authorizing remote sports betting. Federal oversight provides the last word.

“This legislation is the beginning of a conversation, not the end of one,” Gov. Tony Evers said in his April 9 signing message. “Each of the 11 Tribes must now work diligently – and together – to shape the future of sports betting in Wisconsin.”

Illegal, Except

The new law amends Wis. Stat. section 945.01(1) to add a new exception to the definition of an illegal bet.

Gambling is generally illegal in Wisconsin. The 1848 Constitution prohibited gambling.^[1]

Exceptions have crept in, authorizing promotional sweepstakes in 1965, charitable bingo in 1973, charitable raffles in 1977, and pari-mutuel on-track betting and a lottery in 1987.^[2]

The new law allows online sports wagers placed outside of tribal lands if the servers and related devices are “physically located on a federally recognized American Indian tribe’s Indian lands located in this state” and pursuant to an Indian gaming compact.

The U.S. Department of Interior, the principal federal agency concerned with Indian affairs, in 2024 allowed compacts to cover “statewide remote wagering or internet gaming.”^[3]

In 1992, an earlier remote gaming idea was illegal, Attorney General James E. Doyle advised.

“TV bingo” telecast from the Oneida Reservation with a “900 number to facilitate play” broke state criminal laws for any portion of the transaction committed off a reservation.^[4]

Proponents of the new law emphasized last fall that 31 states already allowed online sports betting, “including nearly all our neighbors.”^[5]

Minnesota is the only neighboring state that doesn’t allow it.^[6]

‘Say It Ain’t So’

The belief that the Chicago White Sox threw the 1919 World Series for money – the so-called “Black Sox Scandal” – reinforced sports betting as an illegal enterprise.

“Shoeless Joe” Jackson from the 1919 team and Pete Rose, who may have bet on his team, are posthumously back in professional baseball.

The Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (PASPA) once made it illegal for a state to sponsor gambling based on competitive sports.

In 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court held PASPA unconstitutional. The law pushed federal requirements on to state legislatures, violating the anticommandeering doctrine.^[7]

Amended compacts authorized sports betting in tribal casinos in 2021.

Let the Games Begin

The U.S. Supreme Court authorized tribal gaming in 1987. California believed it could prohibit tribal gaming based on its criminal enforcement power on reservations under Public Law 280.^[8]

Because California allowed charitable bingo and card games, the state did not prohibit gambling, only regulated it, allowing Indian gaming to continue.^[9]

Perhaps urged by dissenting justices, Congress created the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) of 1988, 25 U.S.C. sections 2701-2721, to protect against crime infiltration and encourage tribal economic development and self-sufficiency.^[10]

The National Indian Gaming Commission (NIGC) approves tribal gaming ordinances, resolutions, and management contracts, issues gaming licenses, inspects and audits gaming operations, and investigates wrongdoing.^[11]

IGRA defines three types of gaming. Class I consists of a tribe’s social games. Bingo, tip jars, pull tabs, and related games are Class II, and any other gambling is in Class III.^[12]

In states authorizing Class III “gaming for any purpose by any person, organization or entity,” a tribe may engage in Class III gaming.^[13]

In those states, the state must in good faith negotiate a tribal-state gaming compact, subject to approval by the Secretary of the Interior.^[14]

Eager Response

A month after IGRA’s enactment, Wisconsin’s Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians requested compact negotiations with Wisconsin.^[15]

Wisconsin, a Public Law 280 state with criminal jurisdiction on tribal lands, believed lotteries and on-track pari-mutuel wagering were the only authorized Class III gaming activities.^[16]

The Tribe sued, claiming Wisconsin hadn’t negotiated in good faith.^[17]

The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin agreed with the Tribe.^[18]

“When the voters authorized a state-operated ‘lottery,’ they removed any remaining constitutional prohibition against state-operated games, schemes or plans involving prize, chance and consideration, with minor exceptions.”^[19]

Eventually, a gaming compact resulted through mediation.^[20]

Same, Yet Different

A compact binds state and tribal governments with terms and conditions that permit Class III gaming activities – and their regulation.^[21]

Compacts establish the extent of state criminal and civil enforcement, regulation of gaming operations, fees the Tribe owes the state, and dispute resolution arising under tribal gaming.^[22]

Compacts dating from the early 1990s exist for Wisconsin’s 11 federally recognized tribal entities. All have been amended several times to expand permissible gaming – and increase revenue sharing to Wisconsin.^[23]

Since 1992, tribal Class III net gaming revenues have increased from $142.7 million to $1.3 billion in 2023-24, when net wins generated about $16.3 million to the state. Tribes also share an annual $350,000 payment to the state.^[24]

Most compacts are about 40 pages with about 30 sections demonstrating a common desire to ensure gaming is fair and crime-free through audits, background checks, and investigations.^[25]

Yet, each compact is a unique document, permitting gaming in certain locations, providing which games may be conducted in those locations, and defining the rules of those games.^[26]

Several steps need to happen before remote betting is legal:

• Eleven compacts need to be negotiated and signed.

• Tribal governments need to authorize the specific compact terms.^[27]

• Tribes may need to amend tribal gaming codes and enter into new management contracts, both of which require NIGC approval.^[28]

• The compact with supporting tribal resolution goes to the Secretary of the Interior for review in an approval process that may take 45 days – or without action is approved consistent with IGRA as a matter of law in 90 days.^[29]

• The compact takes effect once it’s published in the Federal Register.^[30]

‘Roller Coaster Ride’

Gov. Evers warned in his signing statement that he wanted all “Tribal Nations in Wisconsin” to “reap the benefits of increased gaming revenues,” something that didn’t happen in “past compact amendments that left some Tribes and their members in poverty while lifting up a few.”

“Statewide mobile events or sports wagering could present an opportunity to help level the playing field,” Evers wrote.

Not only will the negotiations between 11 Tribes scattered across the state create challenges, but who controls Wisconsin’s three branches of government affects the outcome.

Using “Wisconsin’s roller coaster ride” as a case study, Professor Kathryn R.L. Rand, described how “[g]aming compact negotiations are highly politicized, as evidenced by increasing state demands for a share of tribal profits.”^[31]

“The political culture of a state has become a key factor in compact negotiations,” Rand wrote.^[32]

“The governor’s own attitudes toward legalized gambling and Indian gaming, as well as her political viability, may determine the governor’s posture toward the compact process, and thus the nature of the compact negotiations.”^[33]

Each compact renewal takes its personality from the most powerful state leader, Rand described.^[34]

Supported by a 1993 constitutional amendment that narrowed the definition of legal gambling, Gov. Tommy Thompson in 1998 engaged in tough negotiations.^[35]

Gov. James E. Doyle’s “approach was somewhat less heavy-handed,” but the legislature disagreed with the result, seeking legislatively or through federal lobbying to stop the new compact amendments.^[36]

Cases brought by legislators and gambling interests resulted in Wisconsin Supreme Court decisions that nibbled into compact terms.^[37]

This year’s gubernatorial and legislative elections promise new leaders, possibly changing state policy toward tribal gaming.

Endnotes

[1] Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians v. Wisconsin, 770 F. Supp. 480, 486 (W.D. Wis., 1991) (providing history); see Wis. Const. art. IV § 24(1), (6c) (stating limitations to gambling); Wis. Stat. ch. 945 (criminal statutes prohibiting gambling). ^

[2] Lac du Flambeau, 770 F. Supp. at 486 (describing amendments to Wis. Const. art. IV, § 24). ^

[3] 25 C.F.R. § 293.26; Class III Tribal State Gaming Compacts, 89 Fed. Reg. 13232, 13244, 13253-54 (Feb. 21, 2024) (codified at 25 C.F.R. part 293). ^

[4] 80 Wis. Op. Atty. Gen 332 (1992). ^

[5] Rep. Tyler August (R-Walworth), written testimony, Nov. 4, 2025, available at https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/misc/lc/hearing_testimony_and_materials/2025/ab601/ab0601_2025_11_04.pdf; Sen. Howard Marklein (R-Spring Green), written testimony, Nov. 4, 2025, available at https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/misc/lc/hearing_testimony_and_materials/2025/ab601/ab0601_2025_11_04.pdf. ^

[6] Brandt Sutton & Chelera Goldman, U.S. Sports Betting: Where All 50 States Stand on Online Sports Betting Sites, CBS Sports, 10:58 a.m., June 1, 2026, https://www.cbssports.com/betting/news/u-s-sports-betting-where-all-50-states-stand-on-legalizing-online-sports-betting-sites-proposed-legislation/. ^

[7] Murphy v. Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Assoc., 584 U.S. 453, 474 (2018). ^

[8] Calif. v. Cabazon Band of Mission Indians, 480 U.S. 202, 207-11 (1987). ^

[9] Id. at 208-11 (describing state-authorized gambling and concluding “California permits a substantial amount of gambling activity,” meaning it regulates it). ^

[10] 25 U.S.C. § 2701(4) (establishing findings); 25 U.S.C. § 2702 (declaring policy); Michigan v. Bay Mills Indian Cmty., 572 U.S. 782, 794 (2014) (explaining that “Congress adopted IGRA in response to this Court’s decision in … Cabazon”); Cabazon, 480 U.S. at 222 (Stevens, J., dissenting) (“Unless and until Congress exempts Indian-managed gambling from state law and subjects it to federal supervision, I believe that a State may enforce its laws prohibiting high-stakes gambling on Indian reservations within its borders.”). ^

[11] 25 U.S.C. § 2704 (establishing commission); 25 U.S.C. § 2705 (listing NIGC chairman powers); 25 U.S.C. § 2706(b) (listing NIGC’s powers); 25 U.S.C. § 2710 (detailing review of tribal gaming ordinances, issuing licenses, and providing approval for management contracts for Class III gaming); 25 U.S.C. § 2711 (describing acceptable management contracts for Class II gaming). ^

[12] 25 U.S.C. § 2703(6)-(8). ^

[13] 25 U.S.C. § 2710(d)(1); see also 25 U.S.C. § 2701(5) (finding that “Indian tribes have the exclusive right to regulate gaming activity on Indian lands if the gaming activity is not specifically prohibited by Federal law and is conducted within a State which does not, as a matter of criminal law and public policy, prohibit such gaming activity.”) ^

[14] 25 U.S.C. § 2710(d)(1), (3)-(4), (8). ^

[15] Lac du Flambeau, 770 F. Supp. at 483. ^

[16] 18 U.S.C. § 1162 (granting Wisconsin criminal jurisdiction); Lac du Flambeau, 770 F. Supp. at 483. ^

[17] Lac du Flambeau, 770 F. Supp. at 484; see 25 U.S.C. § 2710(d)(3)(A) (requiring the state to negotiate in good faith with the Tribe); 25 U.S.C. § 2710(d)(7) (establishing procedure for tribal claim that state didn’t negotiate in good faith). ^

[18] Lac du Flambeau, 770 F. Supp. at 482 (“I conclude that [the state] is required to negotiate [casino games, video games, and slot machines] because they are permitted under Wisconsin law within the meaning of 25 U.S.C. § 2710(d)(1).”) ^

[19] Id. at 486. ^

[20] Letter from Kathryn L. Tierney, Tribal Attorney, to Office of Tribal Services, Bureau of Indian Affairs (May 12, 1992), available at https://doa.wi.gov/Gaming/LDF_Compact.pdf. ^

[21] See 25 C.F.R. § 293.2(b) (defining “Compact or Tribal-State Gaming Compact”). ^

[22] 25 U.S.C. § 2710(d)(3)(C) (providing IGRA’s list of compact provisions); 25 C.F.R. §§ 293.16-.26 (providing specific provisions that may be in a compact). ^

[23] See Tribal Compacts and Amendments, Wis. Dep’t of Admin., https://doa.wi.gov/Pages/AboutDOA/TribalCompactsAndAmendments.aspx (last visited June 6, 2026) (including compacts and amendments for all federally recognized Wisconsin Tribes). ^

[24] Mitch Wenzel, Tribal Gaming in Wisconsin, Informational Paper 91, Legislative Fiscal Bureau, Jan. 2025, 4-6 available at https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/misc/lfb/informational_papers/january_2025/0091_tribal_gaming_in_wisconsin_informational_paper_91.pdf (last visited June 6, 2026). ^

[25] See Tribal Compacts and Amendments, Wis. Dep’t of Admin., https://doa.wi.gov/Pages/AboutDOA/TribalCompactsAndAmendments.aspx (last visited June 6, 2026) (including compacts and amendments for all federally recognized Wisconsin Tribes). ^

[26] See id. ^

[27] 25 C.F.R. § 293.8(b) (requiring tribal resolution certifying approval of compact with submission of compact to Secretary of the Interior). ^

[28] 25 U.S.C. § 2705(a)(3) (authorizing NIGC chairman to approve tribal ordinances or resolutions under 25 U.S.C. § 2710); 25 U.S.C. § 2705(a)(4) (authorizing NIGC chairman to approve management contracts under 25 U.S.C. § 2710(d)(9) and 25 U.S.C. § 2711). ^

[29] 25 U.S.C. § 2710(d)(8); 25 C.F.R. §§ 293.10-.12 (setting timeline). ^

[30] 25 C.F.R. § 293.14 (setting effective date upon publication). ^

[31] Kathryn R.L. Rand, Caught in the Middle: How State Politics, State Law, and State Courts Constrain Tribal Influence Over Indian Gaming, 90 Marq. L. Rev. 971, 972, 973-74, 1007 (2007). ^

[32] Id. at 981. ^

[33] Id. at 981-82. ^

[34] Id. at 989-94. ^

[35] Id. at 991-93. ^

[36] Id. at 993-94. ^

[37] Id. at 995-1000. ^