US government urges Supreme Court to deny Florida monopoly challenge
Department of the Interior backs legality of Seminole Tribe’s model in Sunshine State as case rumbles on
The Seminole Tribe has been handed a boost in its fight to retain its online gambling monopoly in Florida after the Department of the Interior asked the Supreme Court to deny any rival writ of certiorari.
In a brief, submitted to the Supreme Court on May 13, Department of Justice (DOJ) lawyers said claims by Florida-based parimutuel operators that the compact between the state and the Seminoles violates the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) were incorrect.
The compact, which was approved by Governor Ron DeSantis, effectively allows the Seminoles to operate and gambling monopoly in the Sunshine State.
The Seminoles relaunched online and retail sports betting via its Hard Rock Digital brand late last year after a two-year hiatus caused by the West Flagler and Bonita-Fort Myers legal challenges.
As part of the brief, DOJ lawyers looked at three questions related to the claims against the Seminoles.
Those were whether the compact violates the IGRA, whether the compact violates the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act, and whether the approval of the compact had breached the Fifth Amendment.
The brief rejected these claims and instead pointed to the understanding the Seminoles are allowed to operate a hub-and-spoke model, allowing customers to wager across Florida as the bets are channelled through servers on tribal land.
The Supreme Court had previously given the US government an extension to submit its response, meanwhile back in Florida, the state’s Supreme Court has already rejected a challenge from the parimutuels.
The brief stated: “The court of appeals correctly upheld the Compact’s approval by operation of law, and its decision does not conflict with any decision of this Court or another court of appeals.
“This Court previously denied petitioners’ application for a stay of the court of appeals’ mandate raising the same contentions. The Court should similarly deny certiorari.
“In any event, the compact in this case is an agreement between two sovereigns – the State of Florida and the Seminole Tribe – concerning the Tribe’s own conduct of commercial gaming operations within the State.
“The government has previously explained in this Court why such an agreement between sovereigns does not implicate race-based equal-protection concerns requiring strict scrutiny. But the salient point for present purposes is that petitioners provide no sound basis for this Court to grant review on that equal-protection question in this case.”