Mississippi Administrative Code Title 13 - Gaming
Mississippi Administrative Code – Title 13: Gaming
Title 13 governs the regulation of casinos and other gaming operations in Mississippi. It implements the Mississippi Gaming Control Act and provides rules on:
Licensing of casinos and key employees.
Casino operations, including technical standards for gaming devices.
Accounting and financial reporting.
Enforcement mechanisms, disciplinary actions, and compliance audits.
Site approval for casino locations.
Interaction with charitable gaming and, indirectly, tribal gaming.
The Mississippi Gaming Commission (MGC) oversees compliance, investigations, and enforcement.
Key Regulatory Rules
Licensing and Site Approval
Casinos and gaming operators must obtain licenses from the MGC.
Site approval requires proof that the location meets physical and legal requirements, such as being within certain geographic boundaries and not violating zoning or environmental restrictions.
Licenses are generally valid for three years but can be suspended, revoked, or conditioned based on violations.
Disciplinary Actions
Licensees may be disciplined for actions that endanger public welfare or compromise the integrity of gaming, such as allowing cheating, financial misconduct, or employee malfeasance.
Disciplinary measures include fines, suspension, or revocation of licenses.
Technical Standards
Gaming devices must comply with minimum technical standards, including payout percentages and randomization.
Equipment must be stored securely and only accessible to authorized personnel.
Accounting and Financial Reporting
Casinos must maintain accurate financial records and report regularly to the MGC.
Misreporting or failing to maintain records can trigger penalties.
Enforcement & Investigation
MGC has authority to inspect casinos, require production of records, and conduct investigations.
Non-compliance may result in administrative or legal action.
Case Law Examples
1. RW Development, LLC v. Mississippi Gaming Commission (2020)
Facts: RW Development applied to build a casino near Biloxi. They claimed the site met regulatory standards.
Issue: Whether the MGC properly denied the site approval under Title 13 regulations.
Outcome: The Mississippi Supreme Court upheld the MGC’s decision, ruling that the applicant failed to prove compliance with distance and property requirements.
Significance: Courts defer to the MGC’s interpretation of regulatory rules when supported by evidence.
2. Mississippi Casino Operators Association v. Mississippi Gaming Commission
Facts: Operators challenged the approval of a competing casino site, alleging the MGC misapplied site approval rules.
Outcome: The court upheld the MGC’s authority to approve the site, finding their interpretation consistent with Title 13 and the Gaming Act.
Significance: Demonstrates judicial deference to the MGC in licensing decisions.
3. His Way Homes, Inc. v. Mississippi Gaming Commission (1999)
Facts: A charitable organization licensed to conduct bingo games challenged an MGC decision affecting its video bingo operations.
Outcome: The court recognized that Title 13 extends to charitable gaming, and the MGC’s decision was upheld.
Significance: Shows that Title 13 regulates both commercial and charitable gaming.
4. Casino License Enforcement Cases
Facts: Casinos were investigated for allowing prohibited conduct, failing to report financial irregularities, or violating gaming device standards.
Outcome: MGC has authority to issue fines, suspend, or revoke licenses.
Significance: Enforcement under Title 13 protects public welfare and gaming integrity.
5. Technical Compliance Cases
Facts: Disputes arose regarding slot machine payout percentages and accounting practices.
Outcome: Administrative hearings confirmed that operators must strictly adhere to technical and financial standards.
Significance: Technical and financial rules under Title 13 are legally enforceable.
6. Tribal Gaming Interaction
Facts: Tribal casinos operate under federal law, but Mississippi gaming regulations intersect where state approvals or environmental permits are required.
Outcome: Federal law generally governs tribal casinos, but Title 13 standards can influence certain operational requirements.
Significance: Highlights limitations of state authority under federal law.
7. Enforcement Through Administrative Hearings
Facts: A casino failed to report employee misconduct and improperly stored gaming devices.
Outcome: MGC conducted hearings, imposed fines, and required corrective measures.
Significance: Demonstrates procedural safeguards and the Commission’s broad enforcement powers.
Key Legal Themes
Regulatory Authority
Courts often defer to MGC interpretation if decisions are supported by evidence and statutory authority.
Strict Licensing & Site Approval
Failure to meet technical or geographic requirements can result in license denial.
Enforcement Power
MGC may discipline, suspend, or revoke licenses for violations of Title 13 rules.
Technical & Financial Compliance
Operators must maintain gaming devices, payout standards, and accurate records.
Federal Interaction
Tribal gaming is primarily governed by federal law, limiting state authority.
Summary Table of Cases
| Case | Year | Issue | Outcome | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| RW Development v. MGC | 2020 | Site approval | Denied | Courts defer to MGC evidence-based decisions |
| MS Casino Operators Assn v. MGC | 2000s | Site approval | Approved | Judicial deference to MGC authority |
| His Way Homes v. MGC | 1999 | Charitable gaming | Upheld | Title 13 applies beyond casinos |
| License Enforcement Cases | Various | Misconduct, accounting | Fines/suspensions | Protects public welfare |
| Technical Compliance | Various | Slot machines, records | Administrative hearings | Rules are legally binding |
| Tribal Gaming Interaction | Various | Federal vs state jurisdiction | Federal law prevails | Limits state authority |
Conclusion:
Mississippi Administrative Code, Title 13 – Gaming sets detailed rules for licensing, operations, technical standards, and enforcement. Case law confirms that the MGC has broad authority, and courts generally defer to the Commission’s interpretations when supported by evidence. Violations can result in fines, suspension, or revocation, ensuring integrity and public trust in gaming operations.
RELATED Blog
comments