Florida non-profit wades into sports betting case as row deepens

Florida’s row over tribal online sports betting has gained a new player in No Casinos, with the Florida non-profit organization filing an amicus curiae brief in support of West Flagler Associate’s bid to derail the 30-year tribal gaming compact on constitutional grounds.

Submitting a 33-page briefing in support of West Flagler, No Casinos called on the Florida Supreme Court to grant the Petition for Writ of Quo Warranto, filed by the Florida parimutuel earlier this month.

West Flagler is arguing for a Florida Supreme Court review of the 30-year tribal gaming compact negotiated between the Seminole Tribe, the US Department of the Interior, and Florida’s legislature.

In this case, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis as well as Paul Renner, Speaker of the Florida House of Representatives, and Kathleen Passidomo, President Florida of the Senate, are named as defendants, with West Flagler asserting all have acted unconstitutionally in agreeing the compact in May 2021.

In its supporting argument, No Casinos states that the compact with the Seminole Tribe, which would have allowed mobile sports betting on its tribal lands “violates the text, spirit, and public policy” of the Florida Constitution.

In addition, the curiae brief suggests that the so-called “hub and spoke” model, a key implement of the 30-year compact – which deems gaming to occur on tribal lands because of where servers are located – is “so transparently false and outcome driven” that it disrespects both the constitution and voters alike.

Further, the brief suggests the gaming compact disrespects a prior voter referendum attempt in 2018, known as amendment 3, which was an amendment to provide voters, through citizen-initiated ballot measures, with the exclusive right to decide whether to authorize casino gambling in Florida.

Voters supported the initiative by over two-thirds (71%), but more importantly, the decision limited changes to laws on gambling to ballot measures, and not without the consent of Floridians. This prior decision, No Casinos argues, sets a precedent in this case.

“This court should so hold. Notably, federal defendants in related litigation have taken the position that ‘under federal law, the location of the bettor determines where the bet is placed’ and that a tribal-state compact cannot, by fiat, change the location of the bettor,” No Casinos’ curiae brief stated.

“Respondents’ willingness to overlook and attempt to contract and then legislate around that power, via a legal fiction that sports betting authorized by the compact is deemed to take place on tribal land (wink, wink) should not be countenanced,” the brief adds.

Lastly, the brief asserts that the public policy concerns which drove the amendment 3 debate, those of imposing checks on gambling, preventing criminal influences, and preventing problem gambling in the state still applied, and should force a secondary voter initiative.

“Respondents’ conduct in negotiating and implementing the sports betting provisions of the compact turned a blind eye not only to an existing provision in the Florida Constitution, but also to compelling policy reasons not to turn Florida into a state defined by pervasive gambling,” No Casinos added.

Last week, the US Supreme Court granted West Flagler’s motion to stay enforcement of a prior ruling by the District of Columbia Court of Appeals in support of the Seminole Tribe resuming the operation of sports betting in the state, following the DC court’s ruling in June.

Under the terms of the stay order, the Seminole Tribe, US Department of The Interior, and Florida’s state authorities were given a six-day window to file their own responses to the order, a window which ends on October 18.

In a letter published on X, formerly known as Twitter, by Florida-based litigator Daniel Wallach, the Seminole Tribe’s lawyers have advised the US Supreme Court that they will not be filing a response because they are not a directly named party in the case.

The Seminoles cite a prior denial of intervention on the case by the DC Court of Appeals as precedent for not submitting a response, but assert that they can provide a response should the US Supreme Court require one.

The case continues.