Seminole Tribe and Florida Administration Defend Online Sports Betting Operation in Court

The challenge, presented by West Flagler Associates Ltd. and Bonita-Fort Myers Corp., targets a state agreement that permits the Seminole Tribe to offer sports betting from any location, provided the bets are routed through servers on tribal land. This arrangement, known as the “Seminole Gaming Compact,” was authorized by the Legislature in 2021 and features a “hub and spoke” betting system. The challengers argue that this agreement violates both the federal Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) and Florida’s Amendment 3, which mandates a public referendum for expanding casino gambling in the state.

Federal Court Rulings and the Tribe’s Online Betting Launch

The U.S. Supreme Court upheld a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, validating the sports-betting agreement. Following this, the tribe commenced remote sports betting operations, initially on a limited basis and gradually expanding its customer base.

Seminole Tribe’s Argument in the Amicus Brief

In an amicus brief filed with the Florida Supreme Court, the Seminole Tribe argues that Amendment 3 does not prohibit the sports betting arrangement, nor does IGRA. The tribe points out that Amendment 3 explicitly allows for “the right of the state and tribes to negotiate gaming compacts for the conduct of casino gambling on tribal lands.” The tribe also argues that the Legislature has the authority to determine where online sports wagering is legally initiated and that this power is preserved under Amendment 3.

The State’s Position on the Case

The brief from Attorney General Ashley Moody’s office, representing the DeSantis administration, asserts that West Flagler and Bonita’s case is not validly presented to the Florida Supreme Court, partly due to their delayed filing after losing in federal court. Additionally, the brief argues that sports betting does not fall under the category of ‘casino gambling’ as defined in the Florida Constitution, thus falling outside the scope of Amendment 3’s citizen-initiative requirement. However, it notes that the compact and its implementing legislation are within the IGRA exception outlined in Amendment 3.

Our Comment on the Article

This legal dispute highlights the complex interplay of state laws, federal regulations, and tribal sovereignty in the realm of gambling and sports betting in the United States.

The Seminole Tribe’s partnership with the state of Florida, and the subsequent challenges from rival gambling interests, underscore the evolving nature of the gambling industry, especially in the context of online betting. As the case unfolds in the Florida Supreme Court, the outcome could have significant implications for the future of sports betting, tribal gaming rights, and state regulatory frameworks in Florida and potentially beyond.