Associate Justice Scott L. Kafker chimed in, further challenging Musgrave’s interpretation, suggesting that the law appeared directed at the transfer of licenses from existing operators to new ones. “It seems like [the law] is directed at, ‘OK, we agree to give you the license, you honest and good guy, but you transfer it to someone, that makes us nervous.'”
The court, however, seemed to be more concerned with the second of the First Circuit’s certified questions: whether the side deal compromised the perception of integrity within the casino industry.
$19M Casino Land Deal : Integrity Under Scrutiny
Justice Kafker posed a critical question: did it matter if another court eventually ruled that the Massachusetts Gaming Commission had erred in reducing the sale price of the Everett property?
Musgrave’s response was clear: “That case is completely unrelated. Whatever the commission did, whatever the commission’s actions were, has no impact on the propriety of … resorting to this kind of self-help, secret side deal designed to circumvent its process.”
