legal challenges<\/a> seek to torpedo the process entirely.<\/p>\nWest Flagler Associates and Southwest Florida Enterprises own Magic City Casino and the Bonita Springs Poker Room, respectively. They\u2019ve filed a lawsuit against DeSantis and another against the DOI, claiming the compact violates federal and state laws.<\/p>\n
The compact is controversial because it ostensibly permits sports betting to take place outside of tribal land, via mobile apps controlled by the Seminoles. <\/strong><\/p>\nIt also allows sports betting at card rooms and pari-mutuel venues through revenue sharing partnerships with the tribe. Most pari-mutuels are against this, arguing the 60\/40 split in the tribe\u2019s favor would be uneconomical for them.<\/p>\n
Known Unknowns<\/strong><\/h2>\nIn its lawsuit against the DOI, the two cardrooms ask for a summary judgment on the compact\u2019s legality and an injunction to prevent the Seminoles from launching sports betting. They argue the Seminole-controlled expansion of gaming will cause them \u201ceconomic injury.\u201d<\/p>\n
But in its motion to dismiss, the DOI was unmoved by this argument.<\/p>\n
[The plaintiffs seek] injunctive relief, on the basis that, if the online sports betting contemplated by the Compact is implemented by the Tribe and the State, they may possibly suffer some unspecified economic injury at some unknown point in the future, even though they have the option to partner with the Tribe to offer and profit from such sports betting themselves,\u201d wrote the DOI in its motion to dismiss.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The department also was scathing about a survey the card rooms conducted to demonstrate they would lose customers if the Seminoles were permitted to proceed. The DOI called out its \u201cflawed\u201d methodology, and \u201cbiased, leading, or ambiguous questions.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cEven if such proposition were accurate, and it is not, the fact that such dire forecast is not enough to incentivize Plaintiffs to join with the Tribe to offer those customers such gaming opportunity illustrates that it is not the \u2026 approval of the Compact that is the source of Plaintiffs\u2019 purported future injury, but rather Plaintiffs\u2019 own choice.<\/p>\n
\u201c…Plaintiffs cannot establish standing based on injuries of their own making,\u201d it added.<\/p>\n
Equal Protection <\/strong><\/h2>\nThe card rooms\u2019 claim that the compact violates the equal protection clause of the US Constitution also falls short, according to the DOI. The plaintiffs argued it established \u201cdifferent treatment for gaming facilities on the basis of race, tribal affiliation, and national origin,\u201d creating a \u201cstate-wide, race-based monopoly.\u201d<\/p>\n
But the DOI argued the equal protection claim fails because the plaintiffs are not similarly situated to the tribe and there is no fundamental right at issue.<\/p>\n
\n
Moreover, there is a \u201cwell-established and long-recognized rational basis for Congress to enact laws that promote the self-government and economic self-sufficiency of federally recognized Indian tribes,\u201d the DOI wrote<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/div>\n\u201cSimply put, the Equal Protection Clause does not protect Plaintiffs from increased market competition, and thus the Court must dismiss Plaintiffs\u2019 constitutional claim,\u201d it added.<\/p>\n
\u2018Abuse of Discretion\u2019<\/strong><\/h2>\nUltimately, the plaintiffs believe the department should have torn up the compact, claiming it had a \u201clegal obligation\u201d to do so. They said approving it was \u201carbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, and not in accordance with law.\u201d<\/p>\n
But in its motion to dismiss, the DOI said it had taken no action on the compact during the statutory 45-day review period, as it is expressly permitted to do by IGRA. After this period, the compact was \u201cdeemed approved\u201d under federal law, \u201cbut only to the extent the compact is consistent with the provisions of [IGRA].\u201d<\/p>\n
Which means if any of the provisions are contrary to IGRA, as the plaintiffs contend, then the DOI did not approve them.<\/p>\n
After a compact becomes “deemed approved,” the department is merely required to publish notice in the Federal Register, which it did.<\/p>\n
\u201cThereafter the Secretary had, and continues to have, no role whatsoever with respect to the Compact or how it might be implemented,\u201d the DOI wrote.<\/p>\n
This language suggests the federal government has little appetite to intervene in Florida\u2019s plans to roll out sports betting.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The US Department of the Interior (DOI) has asked a federal judge in Washington, D.C. to dismiss a lawsuit brought by two Florida card rooms. The suit seeks to halt the rollout of sports betting in the state. Wagering on sports becomes legal on Seminole tribal lands from tomorrow, per a new compact negotiated between […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":36,"featured_media":189091,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[60,1074],"tags":[],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n
DOI Asks Judge to Toss Florida Cardrooms\u2019 Seminole Sports Betting Suit<\/title>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\n\n\n\n\n\t\n\t\n\t\n