FL Sports Betting Update
The Florida sports betting saga continues playing out in courtrooms and that could possibly now include the highest court in the land. Chief Justice John Robers issued a stay last week on the Seminole tribe’s sports betting plans as the Supreme Court considers possibly taking up the case.
The move at least temporarily brings a halt to any online wagering in the state. The Seminoles had yet to go forward with its sports betting since receiving a favorable ruling recently in a federal appeals court. The stay in the case means the issue now drags on even longer as more obstacles remain for the tribe’s efforts.
This week, the efforts faced even more opposition from the “No Casinos” group, which spearheaded a 2018 state ballot initiative that curbed any expanded gambling in the state. This issue has led to opposition at the state court level for the betting plan as well, and No Casinos attorneys filed a friend-of-the-court brief in support of the plaintiffs, Magic City Casino and Bonita Springs Poker Room, challenging the tribe’s updated sports betting compact.
“Allowing mobile sports betting throughout the state, based on a legal fiction that tribal servers render the entire state to be Indian land for mobile gambling purposes, undermines this state’s public policy, as expressed in (the constitutional amendment) to disallow such gambling in Florida absent approval by citizen initiative,” the group notes in the filing.
“This court should act to preclude the unconstitutional compact and its implementing statutes from taking effect. Until and unless the voters authorize statewide sports betting, this court has the discretionary power and, we think, the duty to invalidate the respondents’ (Gov. Ron DeSantis and legislative leaders) actions in approving the sports betting provisions of the compact and in passing implementing statutes.”
Supreme Court Could Hear Case
The state’s sports wagering controversy arises from a 2021 agreement with the state that gave the Seminoles the right to offer online sports betting. However, allowing the tribe to accept wagers from outside the group’s traditional lands brought lawsuits from the two casinos that sought to nullify the agreement.
The plaintiffs originally received a favorable ruling that put a halt to sports betting, which has yet to resume in the state. The appeals court ruling, however, meant that the Seminoles might again be able to move forward. The plaintiffs then appealed to the highest court and justices may now be considering whether to hear the case.
A major concept in question appears to be a discrepancy in rulings at the federal levels and in several related rulings, and how wagering off tribal lands has been considered under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA). A discrepancy in rulings may be prompting justices to consider taking up the issue.
Attorneys for Magic City Casino and Bonita Springs Poker Room have hammered home these issues in court filings, arguing that the court could clear up whether tribes are allowed to offer online gaming outside of their traditional lands.
“The question of IGRA’s applicability to off-reservation tribal gaming (including online sports betting) has been a hotly debated topic in recent years, as tribes seek to benefit from the repeal of the federal ban on state-authorized sports betting in an increasingly digital gaming environment while, at the same time, being subjected to a federal law that authorizes only land-based gambling,” the plaintiffs argue in court documents.
“Previous interpretations of IRGA – by courts, federal agencies, and even the State of Florida – had made resoundingly clear that IGRA does not apply to gaming activity that occurs off Indian lands.”
Opposition in State Court & Creating a Sports Betting Monopoly
Gaming expert and attorney Daniel Wallach believes the federal case has merit. He also notes that granting the Seminoles an exclusive on sports betting in Florida, unlike in other states, would also be bad for bettors.
“This is a bad deal for Floridians, bad for the state and terrible for the parimutuel industry,” Wallach told Tampa’s FOX 13. “It would deter competition and wouldn’t be a good experience for the consumer because if you’re dealing with one sportsbook that has the, not only the dominant share, but control over the whole (market), you may get less competitive odds, you may get less attractive marketing inducements such as, free bets, bonus bets and second chance bets.”
The issue is not only facing scrutiny at the highest federal level, but also with the Florida Supreme Court as well. The plaintiffs charge that the sports betting agreement does not follow that 2018 constitutional amendment restricting further gambling expansion, which was approved by voters.
Attorneys for the two gaming properties have filed a “writ of quo warranto,” asking the court to invalidate the agreement between the state and the tribe, ending the chance that sports betting would take place under the updated compact.
