THE parties in Attorney General Edward E. Manibusan’s lawsuit to halt the enforcement of the Tinian stablecoin law have requested the Superior Court to move the hearing dates, as they are actively trying to settle the case.
The case was assigned to Judge Kenneth L. Govendo, who has yet to issue an order on the parties’ request.
Manibusan is seeking a court injunction to stop the enforcement of Tinian Local Law 24-03 and has asked the Superior Court to declare the law unconstitutional.
Gov. Arnold I. Palacios disapproved the measure based on the AG’s legal opinion, but both houses of the Legislature overrode his veto.
The law authorizes internet gambling on Tinian and the issuance of a digital currency known as the “Tinian Stable Token,” later rebranded as the “Marianas U.S. Dollar.”
In his motion for a preliminary injunction, Manibusan urged the court to “stop the implementation of Tinian Local Law 24-03, stop any awarding of internet gaming licenses or internet casino licenses, pause the awarding of the sole-source contract to Marianas Rai Corp., and order Marianas Rai Corp. to stop the issuance of any Marianas USD/Tinian Stable Token during the pendency of this case to determine the constitutionality of Tinian Local Law 24-03 and to maintain the status quo before the veto override and the law’s enactment.”
The AG has named the Tinian Casino Gaming Control Commission, Tinian Municipal Treasurer Maria Barbara Borja, and Marianas Rai Corporation as defendants. Marianas Rai was selected by Tinian as the exclusive provider of software and services for the issuance and redemption of the Marianas U.S. Dollar.
The Tinian Casino Gaming Control Commission and the municipal treasurer are represented by attorney Joey San Nicolas. Marianas Rai Corp. is represented by attorney Richard Miller, while Assistant Attorney General Robert J. Glass Jr. represents the Office of the AG.
The court had previously scheduled a hearing for June 30 at 1:30 p.m. on the AG’s motion for a preliminary injunction.
Stipulation
In a stipulation filed with the court, the parties requested “to extend the time for defendants to file their responses to plaintiff’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction (filed June 2, 2025) to June 25, 2025, and to set July 3, 2025, as the due date for plaintiff’s replies.”
The stipulation stated:
“The reason for this stipulation is that the parties are in active negotiations to reach an agreement that would moot the motion.”
The AG has argued that the local Tinian law exceeds the legislative authority of the Tinian and Aguiguan Legislative Delegation by regulating activities beyond the geographical scope of the Second Senatorial District.
He said the measure also “lacks robust enforcement measures to prevent or thwart illegal gaming activities in order to attain the vibrant and profitable Tinian casino industry the bill envisions, as articulated in its findings and purpose.”
Moreover, it “does not contain any provision providing for fines, license revocations, or other legal sanctions specific to internet gaming that can strengthen enforcement of this especially volatile and vulnerable activity, which, by its fluid nature, makes it harder for the government to track and regulate,” Manibusan said.
Proponents of the measure said they have addressed the concerns raised against it.
