Editing Theodore Olson (section)

== Controversies ==
Olson, who served as Ronald Reagan's assistant [[attorney general]] from 1981 to 1983, recommended that Reagan invoke executive privilege to prevent a Democratic Party-led investigation into the scandal-ridden [[Superfund]] program.<ref name="auto1">{{Cite web|url=https://www.salon.com/2001/05/14/independent_counsel/|title=The first Ted Olson scandal|first=David|last=Neiwert|date=May 14, 2001|website=Salon}}</ref> These claims ultimately proved to be false, in large part.<ref name="auto1"/> In the end, it was Olson's mistakes that led to the departure of Reagan's appointed Environmental Protection Agency administrator, [[Anne Gorsuch Burford]]. As a result, Reagan's plan to reform environmental policy was derailed indefinitely.<ref name="auto1"/>

In the 1980s, Olson provided evasive answers to questions asked by the Congress about the scandal.<ref name="auto1"/> He was then investigated by an independent counsel for allegedly providing false testimony to Congress, which some have termed as [[perjury]], in an effort to conceal his own wrongdoing.<ref name="auto1"/> The investigation ended with the independent counsel ruling that Olsen's testimony was "misleading and disingenuous".<ref name="auto1"/> Olson was a prominent figure in the [[Arkansas Project]], which used the tax-exempt ''[[The American Spectator]]'' to transfer over $2 million to private investigators digging out anti-Clinton trash.<ref name="auto">{{Cite web|url=https://www.salon.com/2001/02/06/olson_3/|title=Ted Olson? You've got to be kidding|first=Joe|last=Conason|date=February 6, 2001|website=Salon}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.salon.com/2001/04/05/olson_4/|title=Ted Olson's anti-Clinton past|first=Joe|last=Conason|date=April 5, 2001|website=Salon}}</ref> He suggested that officials of the [[Clinton administration]] were involved in illegal activities and compared the White House to a Mafia family in anonymous pieces for the ''Spectator''.<ref name="auto" />

Olson challenged California tribal gaming law, namely California's Proposition 5, from 1998 on.<ref>{{Cite web |url=https://news.bloomberglaw.com/business-and-practice/why-gibson-dunns-best-interest-of-the-child-has-a-dark-side |title=Why Gibson Dunn's 'Best Interest of the Child' Has a Dark Side |website=news.bloomberglaw.com}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |url=https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1999-aug-24-mn-3052-story.html |title=State High Court Overturns Indian Gaming Initiative |date=August 24, 1999 |website=Los Angeles Times}}</ref> In January 2022, Olson began representing Maverick Gaming, a Las Vegas-based, in a challenge to gaming compacts in [[Washington state]] that gave exclusivity to more than a dozen Washington tribes for [[sports betting]].<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.legalsportsreport.com/62391/analysis-washington-sports-betting-lawsuit-maverick-gaming/|title=Analysis: Washington Sports Betting Challenged By Maverick Gaming|first=John|last=Holden|date=January 12, 2022}}</ref> The case has been described as a threat to tribal sovereignty and may potentially result in a return to Termination Era policies of the 1950s.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.underscore.news/reporting/experts-say-lawsuits-pose-greatest-threat-to-tribes-in-decades|title=Experts Say Lawsuits Pose Greatest Threat to Tribes in Decades|website=www.underscore.news|date=January 2023}}</ref> After participating as a defendant, the [[Shoalwater Bay Tribe]] filed a move to dismiss the case in October 2022.<ref name="auto2">{{Cite web|url=https://www.atg.wa.gov/news/news-releases/court-dismisses-maverick-gaming-lawsuit-challenging-washington-tribal-sports|title=Court dismisses Maverick Gaming lawsuit challenging Washington tribal sports gaming &#124; Washington State|website=www.atg.wa.gov}}</ref> In February 2023, the case was dismissed by [[David Estudillo]], the chief judge of the [[U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington]].<ref name="auto2" />