A federal appeals court has rejected another bid to halt efforts by the Aquinnah Wampanoags to conduct a gambling operation on Martha’s Vineyard, narrowing the legal options of the state, town and community group to an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The town of Aquinnah, the commonwealth and the Aquinnah/Gay Head Community Association had asked the full, six-judge U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit to hear the case, after a three-judge panel of the same court ruled in favor of the Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head (Aquinnah) last month.

In a one-sentence order issued Wednesday, the full court said it had denied an effort to hear the case, and indicated that the three-judge panel had also denied a request for a rehearing. The decision means the opponents now have one further appeal, to the nation’s highest court, which hears only about one per cent of the 7,000 to 8,000 petitions it receives each year.

In a statement, tribal chairman Cheryl Andrews-Maltais said she was “ecstatic” and called it a “great day for our tribe.” She added that she hoped opponents will now acknowledge the tribe’s right to economic development through gaming, like other federally recognized tribes.

“Maybe now they will stop fighting us, and wasting everyone’s valuable time and resources,” Ms. Andrews-Maltais said. “However if not, we are and remain prepared to continue to defend our rights.”

The Aquinnah selectmen have already authorized an appeal to the nation’s highest court, and now have until August 8 to formally ask the court to review the case, town counsel Ronald H. Rappaport said Thursday.

“Our clear objective is to ask the U.S. Supreme Court to accept the case, and that’s what we’re devoting our energy to,” he said.

The circuit court had ruled April 10 that the 1988 Indian Gaming Regulatory Act that lays out a national framework for gaming by tribes supersedes the 1987 Massachusetts Settlement Act, passed by the same Congress, which said the Aquinnah tribe must submit to state and local regulation, including restrictions on gambling.

In Wednesday’s order, the court said it lacked a majority to grant a hearing by the full court, but did not reveal the vote. Five of the court’s full-time judges participated, with the sixth, Judge David J. Barron, recused from the case.