116 3rd St SE
Cedar Rapids, Iowa 52401
Fate of Cedar Rapids casino hangs in balance as judge considers arguments
State license for $275M Cedar Rapids casino is being challenged
May. 7, 2025 5:20 pm, Updated: May. 8, 2025 9:25 am
The Gazette offers audio versions of articles using Instaread. Some words may be mispronounced.
MOUNT PLEASANT — A district court judge is pondering the fate of a proposed Cedar Rapids casino project after attorneys for and against the $275 million development played their final hands Wednesday in court.
Attorneys for both sides made oral arguments in the culmination of a heated legal challenge to the planned Cedar Crossing Casino & Entertainment Center in Cedar Rapids from a Washington County competitor, Riverside Casino & Golf Resort.
After more than a decade of courting state regulators, backers of the Cedar Rapids casino finally won approval Feb. 6 after the Iowa Racing and Gaming Commission voted 4-1 to approve a license for the Linn County Gaming Association.
Riverside — which stands to lose millions if Cedar Crossing opens — swiftly challenged the license, arguing the commission was precluded from issuing it based on purported deficiencies in a 2021 ballot referendum that allowed legal gambling in Linn County.
Those involved in the Cedar Rapids facility countered that Riverside lacks standing to challenge the ballot in court, and that the action was taken in the name of protecting Riverside’s interests regardless of the projected statewide benefits of casino gambling revenues from the Cedar Rapids project.
Two market studies ordered by the gaming commission say the proposed Cedar Rapids casino largely would rely on pulling patrons and revenue from other Iowa casinos — including Riverside — but still add about $60 million in new net gaming revenues annually for the state. Riverside, however, says it would have to eliminate over 200 jobs if the Cedar Rapids casino proceeds.
Eighth Judicial District Judge Michael Schilling oversaw Wednesday’s hearing and has up to 60 days to issue his ruling. Parties met at the Henry County Courthouse in Mount Pleasant to offer a “neutral” location for their final arguments.
Timely construction of the Cedar Crossing facility is contingent on the case’s conclusion. As proposed, the facility would include 700 slot machines and 22 table games, as well as an assortment of restaurants, bars and other entertainment amenities in northwest Cedar Rapids near downtown.
Attorneys double down on written arguments
During oral arguments, attorneys strayed little from arguments already presented in the hundreds of pages of written filings submitted ahead of Wednesday’s hearing. Still, it gave attorneys an opportunity to directly interface with opposing counsel and counter opponents’ points in real time.
In their oral arguments, attorneys for Riverside Casino leaned heavily on what they contend are deficiencies of the 2021 ballot language — which attorney Mark Weinhardt cast as “defective” and “misleading.”
The 2021 ballot was the second time Linn County voters approved legalized gambling in the county. A 2013 approval was set to expire, and the 2021 vote was meant to extend it indefinitely to allow a new casino application to regulators.
But that 2021 question, Public Measure G, asked Linn County voters whether legalized gambling “may continue” in the county. At that time, however, no such activity had occurred given the lack of a legal license.
“In a county where there was no gambling going on, a proposition requiring the approval or defeat of gambling games should ask the voters to approve the commencement or initiation of gambling,” Weinhardt said. “It can’t ask them to continue existing gambling games” that didn’t exist.
Attorneys for the respondents — which include the Iowa Racing and Gaming Commission, Linn County Gaming Association and casino developer Cedar Rapids Development Group — guffawed at that assertion.
Speaking on behalf of the Linn County Gaming Association, attorney Sam Jones argued that legalized gambling had been a “hot button topic” in Linn County for more than a decade before the 2021 referendum.
Citing the robust media coverage and overall prevalence of public discourse around the topic, he said there was little chance any voters experienced confusion at the ballot box.
“There were 420 written comments that were submitted to the Gaming Commission both in favor and in opposition to the license,” Jones told the court. “Notably, none of those comments expressed confusion about the language of Public Measure G or suggested that others may have been confused by it.”
Weinhardt countered that regardless of voters’ prior knowledge, the outcome outlined in the ballot language differs from its real-life effect and therefore does not support the Racing and Gaming Commission’s decision to issue the Linn County license.
In turn, Cedar Rapids Development Group attorney Mark Holscher pushed back and asked what standing a Washington County entity has to question a Linn County election — particularly when the referendum took place over three years ago.
Judicial opinion could be coming soon
Under Iowa code, Schilling has up to 60 days to issue his opinion — although he offered a hint Wednesday that his decision could come sooner.
“I’m not going to issue any promises as to precisely when I rule, but I’ll be giving this case my full and complete attention for the coming days because it is a challenge,” Schilling told attorneys and others gathered in the courtroom.
In March, Schilling denied Riverside’s request to put a temporary hold on the license for a Cedar Rapids casino, but said Linn County’s ballot language may have “caused confusion in the mind of the voters” and said Riverside had “shown a reasonable likelihood of success” in its quest to challenge the referendum.
A representative for the Riverside petitioners declined to comment at the conclusion of Wednesday’s hearing.
Cedar Rapids Mayor Tiffany O’Donnell cast Riverside’s argument around the ballot language as an “incredible insult” to the intelligence of Linn County voters who approved the referendum in 2021.
O’Donnell — a vocal Cedar Crossing advocate — attended the hearing alongside a cadre of other public and private-sector supporters pushing for the Cedar Rapids development, including Linn County Gaming Association President Anne Parmley.
Parmley seconded O’Donnell’s assertion and expressed confidence that Linn County voters were aware and informed on the impacts of the 2021 vote. Barring judicial intervention, she said the Cedar Crossing development would move forward and a grand opening is planned for late 2026.
“I feel confident that Linn County voters were fully aware of what they were voting for, and I would say that there's even more support today (than in 2021) now that people have realized the impact that Cedar Crossing can have on our community,” she said.
Comments: grace.nieland@thegazette.com
Daily Newsletters