West Flagler and Associates (WFA) Tuesday morning filed Florida sports betting.
WFA argued that digital wagering not only is most definitely covered by the state’s Amendment 3 requiring that gambling expansion be approved by voters, but also that both proponents and opponents in the case have previously argued that sports betting is squarely within the Amendment 3 definition of “casino gambling.” The response is the final briefing that the court justices need to begin considering the case and determine its fate.
From here, the court could decide to hear the case, decline the case, or send the case to Leon County Court, a step that WFA skipped when it filed with the Florida Supreme Court. There is no hard and fast timeline for when the court must make a decision. The case is one of two that WFA has brought in hopes of having the 2021 Seminole-State of Florida compact deemed invalid. The other is on the federal level, where WFA is set to file in February with the U.S. Supreme Court.
The Seminoles on found in favor of the U.S. Department of the Interior in allowing the compact, and WFA is appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court, in addition to the filing in Florida.
Five key points, including Amendment 3 2d6170
In Tuesday’s filing, WFA addresses issues brought by Gov. Ron DeSantis et al in the state’s Dec. 1. response to the parimutuel’s filing. WFA addressed the following issues:
- Does Amendment 3 mandate voter approval off tribal lands?
- Is off-tribal land casino gaming an exception to Amendment 3 and the compact?
- Is a quo warranto filing appropriate?
- Was WFA timely in its filing?
- Is the tribe an “indispensable” party to the case?
The first two issues are likely the biggest with regard to the future of sports betting and how a ruling could be interpreted in other jurisdictions. DeSantis et al took issue with whether WFA filed under the proper format, and legal professionals have told Sports Handle that WFA should be able to seek relief via a quo warranto filing.
With regard to timing, the state has argued that WFA should have filed in 2021, after the compact was crafted and approved, but WFA has argued all along that it did not want to waste the court’s time if a federal court found in its favor. Finally, the Seminoles are not party to the lawsuit, as WFA can’t sue the tribe directly. As a sovereign nation, the tribe, in this case, is not beholden to Florida law. The Seminoles could agree to be party to the case, but so far have not done so, and Rodriguez does not believe it is necessary for the tribe to be a named party.
The Florida State Supreme Court rejected a motion from pari-mutuel betting operator West Flagler Associates to suspend Hard Rock Bet and its online sports betting offering in the state https://t.co/WtlBBnTyUU pic.twitter.com/6xxkdBEm3K
— iGB (@iGamingBusiness) November 20, 2023
With regard to the key issues of the compact’s legality on the state level, the debate has centered around whether the tribe and the state legislature circumvented 2018’s Amendment 3, which requires that any expansion of gaming go to the voters. WFA attorney Raquel A. Rodriguez wrote in the new filing that the “plain language” of Amendment 3 “expressly limits the power of the elected branches to to expand gambling off tribal lands and grants that power exclusively to the people.”
Rodriguez contended that the state “attempt(s) in various, unavailing ways, to dodge the plain language of this amendment to shoehorn statewide gaming into an exception clearly meant only to permit gaming on tribal lands.”
WFA’s attorney further argued that sports betting most definitely should be considered a “casino game” and that the Amendment 3 definition of that — a list of casino games that “include, but are not limited to” — does not exclude sports betting. In addition, WFA points out that the compact itself does list sports betting as an allowed game.
Betting was a ‘known activity’ 3d2pb
At the time that Amendment 3 was written, sports betting was legal only in Nevada, but by the time it was ed in November 2018, consumers could bet on sports in person in Delaware, Arkansas voters legalized retail and digital wagering.
Rodriguez wrote that because Amendment 3 relied on statutes in Mississippi, Nevada, and New Jersey, where wagering was legal in some form, that betting was at that time a “known activity.” In addition, the DeSantis lawyers argue that Amendment 3 allows for types of casino gambling that were “typically found in casinos” at the time of its age, but does not specifically disqualify new kinds of gaming in the future.
Finally, WFA lawyers state that at the time language for Amendment 3 was being considered, both opponents and proponents (including the Seminole Tribe) agreed that sports betting was an example of “casino gambling” and should be included.
“'This [compact] violates Amendment 3 in at least three ways,' No Casinos President John Sowinski said.
"Amendment 3 — adopted in 2018 with a 71% approval from statewide voters — requires any new casino gambling in Florida to be approved by voters."https://t.co/yxtSAbp5pF
— No Casinos (@NoCasinos) April 23, 2021
What are IGRA’s boundaries? 2r541d
The question of what, exactly, the federal Indian Gaming Regulatory Act governs is another important question in this case. Section 30(b) of Amendment 3 allows for an exception for gambling that takes place on tribal lands. The compact, however, “deems” that digital bets placed anywhere in the state of Florida should be considered to have been placed in Indian Country if they utilize servers located on tribal land.
Rodriguez again took issue with this interpretation, referring back to a federal decision that said an “IGRA compact must do what the D.C. Circuit decision makes clear it cannot do — authorize the gaming activity in question. Respondents are thus caught in an inescapable trap. The only way to expand casino gambling under state law is by having that gaming authorized through an IGRA compact, but under the D.C. Circuit’s decision, such authorization of off-tribal-lands gaming is not possible under IGRA.”
WFA lawyers go on to say that the state’s arguments “subvert” the intent of IGRA and that the state is trying to “smuggle” sports betting into the federal law. In essence, wrote WFA’s attorneys, the use of the phrase “on tribal lands” in IGRA is clear.
