When a battle unfolded over the opening of a new casino in the small Pope County, Arkansas, residents witnessed a rare alliance: the church and competitors from another gaming industry joined forces.
Why did the fight against gambling unite them, and what price did all participants in this story pay? Unexpected alliances, serious money, and high political stakes—this story illustrates the hidden mechanisms of decision-making at the regional level and the issues that concern the entire U.S. gambling market.
How the casino found itself in the spotlight in Pope County
In 2018, Arkansas residents approved an amendment to the state constitution that paved the way for the construction of casinos in four counties at once: Crittenden, Garland, Pope, and Jefferson. For many, this was an important step in developing the region’s economic potential, but in Pope, the decision sparked significant discontent.
Local residents repeatedly initiated attempts to revoke the permit for construction, explaining their disagreement by citing risks to the social climate, concerns about rising crime, and moral values traditionally strong in the American South.
Arkansas has strict restrictions regarding gambling. Thus, despite the fact that a number of U.S. states have already decided to legalize gambling, in Arkansas it remains illegal. Offshore site operators accepting bets from Arkansas residents operate in a gray area. At the same time, there has been no direct prosecution of residents, although some of them still play in online casinos.
Access to gambling entertainment today is extremely simple. Gamblers only need to review the list of casinos that offer Aviator Apps here to choose an online platform to their liking. If Arkansas residents do not want to use such platforms, they have several alternatives—these are sports betting and fantasy sports, as well as social casinos and online poker.
And yet, a significant part of the gambling market in Arkansas is land-based casinos, which are tightly regulated and do not want competition.
Major players entered the arena: the Cherokee Nation as a contender for the casino license and representatives of religious organizations, who were firmly opposed to such changes.
Who and why financed the anti-casino movement
The organization Local Voters in Charge became the driving force behind the fight against the appearance of a casino in Pope County. Among its ranks were influential church leaders, such as administrative pastor Larry Walker and deacon Jim Knight from the First Baptist Church in Russellville.
But an unexpected twist occurred when large-scale funding of the campaign became known. According to documents from the Arkansas Ethics Commission published on October 29, 2024, over the year the Choctaw Nation invested $17.7 million in the movement. This step is easily explained by economics: the Choctaw casino in Pocola, Oklahoma, located on the border with Arkansas, according to estimates by the Cherokee Nation, brings in about $12 million annually, which could be at risk if a new competitor appeared.
Why did competitors support church activists? On the one hand, such an alliance allowed all parties to achieve a common goal—blocking the construction of a casino in Pope. On the other hand, questions of ethics and pragmatism collide here. Such alliances have occurred before: in various U.S. states, for example, in Louisiana and South Dakota, competing companies joined with public and religious movements to influence the outcome of gambling referendums.
Arguments of the parties and the course of the legal battle over the casino
In 2024, the Cherokee Nation managed to obtain a license to build a casino in Pope, but at the same time, activists with the support of the Choctaw Nation pushed for a new amendment proposal—Amendment 104 or Issue 2. This amendment removed Pope County from the list of permitted counties for casinos and enshrined the right of local residents to directly vote on the issue of future gambling licenses.
In court, the Cherokee Nation relied on three main arguments. The first was a violation of the contract clause, that is, the protection of contractual rights from government interference. The second was a violation of the takings clause; under this provision, if the government seizes or restricts private property, it is obliged to pay fair compensation. The third point was the bill of attainder, the prohibition on creating laws that persecute by name a specific organization or group.
Opponents of the casino insisted on the priority of community interests and the protection of residents’ rights to independently determine the future of the county. In their opinion, the amendment ensured transparency in the gambling market and returned control to the local level.
Key findings and consequences of the court’s decision
Federal Judge D.P. Marshall reviewed the arguments of both sides. The court concluded that acts restricting the construction of casinos do not violate contractual obligations, since, in the court’s wording, “the Cherokee Nation knowingly took on commercial risk by purchasing the land in advance.” It was also noted that the amendment did not apply to a single player, but completely excluded any casinos in Pope County from March to November 2024.
Regarding compensation claims, the court indicated that the Cherokee Nation should have applied to the competent state authorities—the Arkansas Claims Commission and the Arkansas General Assembly. Claims of “personal discrimination” were also rejected, because the amendment was not addressed exclusively to the Cherokee Nation.
A notable quote appears in the court materials: “A state law does not constitute an act of persecution simply because its provisions affect a limited circle of organizations.”
Reaction of the parties and consequences for the state
After the court’s decision, representatives of Local Voters in Charge publicly expressed gratitude for confirming the legitimacy of Amendment 104. Their statement noted: “This decision is a signal to everyone who tries to circumvent the will of local voters and develop the gambling industry in Arkansas.”
The Cherokee Nation has not yet announced its next steps, but experts note: such a court decision becomes an important precedent for future proceedings and the strategy of other investors.
For Pope residents, the usual status of the county was preserved; for the gambling market, a new point of tension emerged. For the Choctaw Nation, this case became a successful example of protecting their own revenues. Can we expect that other competitors will also take advantage of such alliances with public movements?
Religious organizations traditionally play a significant role in American public life. It is they who often become initiators or driving forces behind campaigns against the spread of gambling, drugs, and other challenges of modern society.
The casino issue remains particularly acute in southern states, where traditional values and the significant influence of the church have historically been strong. At the same time, alliances between competing business structures and activists provoke many ethical discussions: is such pragmatism acceptable? Can this undermine trust in educational initiatives or, on the contrary, increase their effectiveness?
Examples from Mississippi, Louisiana, and other states show: such alliances are part of a complex system of influence on gambling policy. For society, this is both a resource and a risk, which requires constant attention to transparency and integrity from all participants in the process.