MICHIGAN GAMING CONTROL AND REVENUE ACT
Initiated Law 1 of 1996
432.203 Casino gaming authorized.
Sec. 3.
(1) Casino gaming is authorized to the extent that it is conducted in accordance with this act.
(2) Except as provided in subsection (5), this act does not apply to any of the following:
(a) The pari-mutuel system of wagering used or intended to be used in connection with race meetings as authorized under the horse racing law of 1995, 1995 PA 279, MCL 431.301 to 431.336.
(b) Lottery games authorized under the McCauley-Traxler-Law-Bowman-McNeely lottery act, 1972 PA 239, MCL 432.1 to 432.47.
(c) Bingo or millionaire parties or any other activities authorized under the Traxler-McCauley-Law-Bowman bingo act, 1972 PA 382, MCL 432.101 to 432.120.
(d) Gambling on Native American land and land held in trust by the United States for a federally recognized Indian tribe on which gaming may be conducted under the Indian gaming regulatory act, Public Law 100-497, 102 Stat. 2467.
(e) Recreational card playing, bowling, redemption games, and occasional promotional activities under sections 303a, 310a, 310b, 372, and 375 of the Michigan penal code, 1931 PA 328, MCL 750.303a, 750.310a, 750.310b, 750.372, and 750.375.
(3) Any other law that is inconsistent with this act does not apply to casino gaming as provided for by this act.
(4) This act and rules promulgated by the board shall apply to all persons who are licensed or otherwise participate in gaming under this act.
(5) If a federal court or agency rules or federal legislation is enacted that allows a state to regulate gambling on Native American land or land held in trust by the United States for a federally recognized Indian tribe, the legislature shall enact legislation creating a new act consistent with this act to regulate casinos that are operated on Native American land or land held in trust by the United States for a federally recognized Indian tribe. The legislation shall be passed by a simple majority of members elected to and serving in each house.
History: 1996, Initiated Law 1, Eff. Dec. 5, 1996 ;-- Am. 1997, Act 69, Imd. Eff. July 17, 1997
PopularName Notes:
Proposal E
Notes of Decisions
Taxpayers of Michigan Against Casinos v. State, 685 N.W.2d 221 (Mich. 2004).
· cites it 14× “[40] Moreover, I find to be of significance the fact that MCL 432.203 not only expressly provides that the MGCRA is inapplicable to casino gambling on Indian lands, but it also provides: If a federal court or agency rules or federal legislation is enacted that allows a state to…”
Kraft v. Detroit Ent., LLC, 683 N.W.2d 200 (Mich. Ct. App. 2004).
· cites it 5× “” MCL 432.203(3). The Legislature’s use of the phrase “[a]ny other law” implies that the preemption clause is all-inclusive when referring to the laws it was meant to encompass.”
Parise v. Detroit Ent., LLC, 811 N.W.2d 98 (Mich. Ct. App. 2011).
· cites it 3× “In lieu of filing an answer to plaintiffs complaint, defendant, a casino subject to the Michigan Gaming Control and Revenue Act (MGCRA), MCL 432.”
Northville Downs v. Governor of Michigan, 622 F.3d 579 (6th Cir. 2010).
· cites it 2× “See Mich. Comp. Laws § 432.203 (2)(d). In the early 2000s, horse-race tracks lobbied the legislature for approval to offer slot machines, off-track racing theaters, and account wagering.”
Kraft v. Detroit Ent., LLC, 683 N.W.2d 200 (Mich. Ct. App. 2004).
· cites it 5× “" MCL 432.203(3). The Legislature's use of the phrase "[a]ny other law" implies that the preemption clause is all-inclusive when referring to the laws it was meant to encompass.”
Boelter v. Advance Magazine Publishers Inc., 210 F. Supp. 3d 579 (S.D.N.Y. 2016).
“2004) (inconsistent common law claims preempted by law stating that “[a]ny other law that is inconsistent with this act does not apply to casino gaming as provided for by this act” (quoting Mich. Comp. Laws § 432.203 (3))), with Morris Pumps v.”
Taxpayers of Michigan Against Casinos v. State, 657 N.W.2d 503 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003).
· cites it 3× “MCL 432.203(2). Additionally, in the event that states are given authority by the federal government to regulate gambling on Indian tribal land, new legislation would be passed to regulate those casinos.”
Monique Jewell v. Mgm Grand Detroit LLC (Mich. Ct. App. 2026).
· cites it 3× “In Kraft, this Court described the “expansive and exclusive authority” of the Board to “regulate all aspects of casino gambling,” observing that the Board’s rules set forth the procedure for a patron to file a complaint against a casino licensee.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 432.203(1) — 3 cases
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 432.203(2) — 1 case
Taxpayers of Michigan Against Casinos v. State, 657 N.W.2d 503 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003).
“MCL 432.203(2). Additionally, in the event that states are given authority by the federal government to regulate gambling on Indian tribal land, new legislation would be passed to regulate those casinos.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 432.203(2)(d) — 4 cases
Taxpayers of Michigan Against Casinos v. State, 685 N.W.2d 221 (Mich. 2004).
“[40] Moreover, I find to be of significance the fact that MCL 432.203 not only expressly provides that the MGCRA is inapplicable to casino gambling on Indian lands, but it also provides: If a federal court or agency rules or federal legislation is enacted that allows a state to…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 432.203(3) — 9 cases
Kraft v. Detroit Ent., LLC, 683 N.W.2d 200 (Mich. Ct. App. 2004).
“” MCL 432.203(3). The Legislature’s use of the phrase “[a]ny other law” implies that the preemption clause is all-inclusive when referring to the laws it was meant to encompass.”
Parise v. Detroit Ent., LLC, 811 N.W.2d 98 (Mich. Ct. App. 2011).
“In lieu of filing an answer to plaintiffs complaint, defendant, a casino subject to the Michigan Gaming Control and Revenue Act (MGCRA), MCL 432.”
Kraft v. Detroit Ent., LLC, 683 N.W.2d 200 (Mich. Ct. App. 2004).
“" MCL 432.203(3). The Legislature's use of the phrase "[a]ny other law" implies that the preemption clause is all-inclusive when referring to the laws it was meant to encompass.”
Monique Jewell v. Mgm Grand Detroit LLC (Mich. Ct. App. 2026).
“In Kraft, this Court described the “expansive and exclusive authority” of the Board to “regulate all aspects of casino gambling,” observing that the Board’s rules set forth the procedure for a patron to file a complaint against a casino licensee.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 432.203(4) — 2 cases
Monique Jewell v. Mgm Grand Detroit LLC (Mich. Ct. App. 2026).
“In Kraft, this Court described the “expansive and exclusive authority” of the Board to “regulate all aspects of casino gambling,” observing that the Board’s rules set forth the procedure for a patron to file a complaint against a casino licensee.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 432.203(5) — 5 cases
Taxpayers of Michigan Against Casinos v. State, 685 N.W.2d 221 (Mich. 2004).
“[40] Moreover, I find to be of significance the fact that MCL 432.203 not only expressly provides that the MGCRA is inapplicable to casino gambling on Indian lands, but it also provides: If a federal court or agency rules or federal legislation is enacted that allows a state to…”
Taxpayers of Michigan Against Casinos v. State, 657 N.W.2d 503 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003).
“MCL 432.203(2). Additionally, in the event that states are given authority by the federal government to regulate gambling on Indian tribal land, new legislation would be passed to regulate those casinos.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.