In its latest salvo against the state law that authorized the Mashantucket Pequot and Mohegan tribes to pursue casino proposals, MGM Resorts International argues that the tribes “are getting further and further ahead” in a Connecticut casino-development race that MGM apparently would like to join, if it could.

Attorneys for the Las Vegas-based gaming operator urged a federal judge this week to deny the state's bid to have MGM’s suit against the law tossed.

MGM Resorts contends that the law is unconstitutional and that it harms MGM because it prevents the operator from competing on “an equal footing” with the tribes.

Since MGM first filed the suit in August in U.S. District Court in New Haven, the tribes have formed a joint business entity that sought casino proposals from Connecticut municipalities.

Four towns — East Hartford, East Windsor, Hartford and Windsor Locks — responded, submitting five proposals that the tribes are evaluating.

The tribes are expected to negotiate a development agreement with the municipality that’s home to the plan it selects.

The tribes would then need the legislature to legalize commercial gaming before a casino project could proceed.

Connecticut’s existing casinos — Foxwoods Resort Casino and Mohegan Sun — are considered “tribal” rather than “commercial,” and are subject to federal oversight.

Faced with the prospect of out-of-state competition, particularly the $950 million resort casino MGM Resorts is building in Springfield, Mass., the tribes, respective owners of Foxwoods and Mohegan Sun, backed the law authorizing them to pursue a plan to develop a third Connecticut casino in the Hartford area.

MGM Resorts believes it can rightfully sue over the Connecticut casino law — Special Act 15-7 — because it is being harmed by the law.

In their filing, MGM attorneys argue that “despite being ‘ready, willing, and able to compete for the opportunity to develop a commercial casino facility in Connecticut,' MGM 'is excluded by the Act from competing for this opportunity.'”

The state’s claim that the law does not allow the tribes, municipalities or even MGM to do anything they couldn’t already do before 15-7 was enacted “are at best disingenuous,” MGM’s attorneys say.

“By virtue of being denied an opportunity to compete on equal footing, MGM is presently injured by the Act,” they say. “Indeed, the harm to MGM is only increasing as the Preferred Tribes are getting further and further ahead in the casino-development process and will have a competitive advantage even if the process is begun anew in a form that allows MGM to participate.”

Although MGM’s license for its Springfield casino prohibits it from developing another casino within 50 miles of Springfield, MGM has studied the feasibility of developing a Connecticut casino outside the 50-mile radius and concluded that "many" potential sites exist.

b.hallenbeck@theday.com

Twitter: @bjhallenbeck