You've peddled that lie here before, but Jeff and AuntB presented credible evidence that the participants paid off every penny and more. - There is no subsidy, the operations turn a profit.
Well, yeah. Once you delete the initial subsidy (I sure as hell can't swing an interest-free loan, nor can I force land sales at gunpoint, nor can I just make a sweetheart deal with the statehouse for their lands, nor can I simply rewrite a treaty with the local Indian tribe at the drop of a hat), it makes a profit.
If they had to pay market prices for the land AND the loans, this thing would have gone broke in a few years.
Like I said, the plaintiffs' case reduces down to "it may be unconstitutional as hell, but it's OUR pet unconstitutionality, so we ought to continue deriving the benefits thereupon."