A legal attempt to overturn the state-issued gaming license for the $275 million Cedar Crossing Casino project in Cedar Rapids has been dismissed by an Iowa District Court judge. In a ruling filed June 19, Judge Michael Schilling denied a lawsuit brought by Riverside Casino and the Washington County Riverboat Foundation, which challenged the legality of a 2021 Linn County referendum and the Iowa Racing and Gaming Commission’s (IRGC) authority to issue a casino license based on that vote.

Judge rejects lawsuit challenging Linn County casino referendum:

Filed February 6—the same day the IRGC voted 4-1 to approve the state’s 20th gaming license for Linn County—the lawsuit alleged that the referendum was flawed. The plaintiffs argued that the ballot language, which stated gambling “may continue” in Linn County“ without wager or loss limits,” was misleading since no casino existed in the county at the time.

However, Judge Schilling ruled that the IRGC acted within its legal authority, stating, “The court concludes that the decision to grant a gambling game license for a Linn County casino on February 6, 2025, cannot be fairly characterized as an erroneous interpretation of law.”

He also addressed the specific wording of Public Measure G, determining that any perceived issues were “minor defects in the form of the ballot,” not substantive flaws that would invalidate the election. “Petitioners’ challenges to the words… fall into the category of minor defects… and do not rise to the level of a ‘fatal defect of substance,’” the ruling read.

Another argument put forth by Riverside and the WCRF was that the IRGC had failed to give proper weight to the economic damage a new casino in Cedar Rapids would cause to existing venues. This included projections of revenue losses of up to $34 million annually for Riverside Casino, based on a study by Marquette Advisors.

Yet, Judge Schilling found no evidence that the commission’s decision was “unreasonable, arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion.” He noted that the IRGC had reviewed a substantial record, including opposing viewpoints, two separate market studies, and public input, before making its decision.

Linn County Gaming Association President Anne Parmley welcomed the court’s ruling, saying the team was moving “full-speed ahead” toward an on-schedule opening of Cedar Crossing on New Year’s Eve 2026. The development is backed by Peninsula Pacific Entertainment and will include 700 slot machines, 22 table games, three restaurants, a 1,500-seat performance venue, and a STEM learning lab.

Mayor Tiffany O’Donnell of Cedar Rapids, a long-time supporter of the casino project, said the decision validates local voter support and the IRGC’s judgment. “It really affirms what voters here already knew,” she said. “We spoke loud and clear at the ballot box, and now the judge has made it official.”

Economic outlook for Cedar Rapids and community impact:

Multiple economic analyses anticipate substantial benefits from the casino project. A report by Convergence Strategy Group projected $108 million in annual gaming revenue, of which $80.2 million would be new to Iowa’s economy. Meanwhile, the development is expected to generate over 1.1 million annual visitors and provide $33.5 million in community revenues each year, including more than $6 million in nonprofit contributions—double the state-mandated minimum.

According to Corridor Business Journal, construction of the 160,000-square-foot facility is well underway on a site once occupied by flood-damaged properties, with plans for three new restaurants and a cultural center developed in partnership with National Geographic and Miss America 2020 Camille Schrier.

Though Riverside Casino and WCRF have not confirmed whether they will appeal, their attorney, Mark Weinhardt, stated, “The court agrees that Riverside Casino and its non-profit partner had a right to challenge this license in court. It agrees that the Cedar Rapids casino will cost our clients many millions of dollars.”

Yet, the court ultimately sided with Linn County voters and state regulators. Attorney Jeff Peterzalek, representing the IRGC, emphasized that the agency had fulfilled its mandate: “They’re the ones that control all aspects of this highly-regulated, highly-complex industry.”