However, an amicus brief submitted last month by Florida Attorney General Ashley Moody makes further note. The state cites that IGRA allows states and tribes to include \u201cany other subjects that are directly related to the operation of gaming activities\u201d in the compact negotiations.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe bets and wagers placed by individuals physically located off Indian Lands directly relate to the operation of online-gaming activities physically housed on Indian Lands,\u201d Moody said in the brief. \u201cThey therefore are expressly made a permissible subject of the Compact.\u201d<\/p>\n
The two pari-mutuel operators and the federal government are listed as the plaintiffs and defendants, respectively. However, there are other parties involved in the case as well.<\/p>\n
The Seminole Tribe has sought to intervene in the case and would seek a dismissal of the case. Tribal leaders argue they have a right to take part in the litigation because the outcome would directly impact their interests.<\/p>\n
In addition, a Florida anti-expanded gaming group called “No Casinos” organized a separate federal lawsuit in the DC. The organization and other individuals are seeking to have the entire compact blocked, because they argue it goes against an amendment to the Florida constitution. That amendment, which voters ratified in 2018, requires any attempt to expand casino gaming to go before the voters first. Friedrich also heard their arguments against the compact during Friday\u2019s hearing.<\/p>\n
In a separate filing in that case, also submitted on Monday, the federal government clarified its stance. It said Florida\u2019s negotiations with the Seminole Tribe to give the sovereign nation exclusive rights to sports betting – and allowing the tribe to offer roulette and dice table games at its Class III casinos – do not violate IGRA or any other federal law or constitutional provision.<\/p>\n
Indeed, tribes across the country have been granted, through compacts, the exclusive right to conduct certain forms of gaming in exchange for providing revenue sharing payments to the state, and exclusivity is the very justification that allows for such revenue sharing,\u201d<\/strong> the government argued.<\/p><\/blockquote>\nFlorida officials also submitted an amicus brief in the “No Casinos” case, doing so last week.<\/p>\n
In that brief, Moody points out that the referendum voters passed in 2018 included a carve-out exception for Indian tribes negotiating Class III compacts with the state.<\/p>\n
\u201cThis language expressly permits the state to enter into an IGRA compact with an Indian tribe without a referendum,\u201d wrote Moody, who added the sponsors of the measure and the Florida Supreme Court agreed with that interpretation.<\/p>\n
Showdown in State Court?<\/h2>\n
The essence of Monday\u2019s two filings from the government is that Interior officials followed federal statutes accordingly.\u00a0 Most of the claims the pari-mutuel operators and the anti-expanded gaming parties make involve state laws.<\/p>\n
While federal courts can make rulings on state laws, Ross urged Friedrich in both filings to instead abstain if she had questions or rejected the state\u2019s points in its amicus briefs.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe court should consider refraining from reaching such questions, as plaintiffs presumably could and should resolve these issues in an appropriate state forum,\u201d <\/strong>Ross wrote. \u201cIndeed, since many of the claims and relief sought in these cases involve the state and state law, a state forum would be the more appropriate for any such challenge.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n\n
During last Friday\u2019s hearing, Friedrich said she would try to have a ruling in place by this coming Monday. But she also laid out the possibility of asking plaintiffs to respond if she felt that was necessary. That request, if necessary, would come no later than Thursday.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
Regardless of how Friedrich rules in the case, and even if one of the plaintiffs were to pursue a case in the Florida courts, it\u2019s highly likely the case will make its way through the federal court system. That’s because it could impact how states and tribes negotiate future compacts.<\/p>\n
Federal Lawyer: No “Gamesmanship”<\/h2>\n
Throughout the hearing, Friedrich openly expressed her frustrations at the response the federal government submitted and the responses Ross gave her. Friedrich was stunned that federal lawyers did not adhere to the briefing schedule she laid out when the plaintiffs made their motion for either summary judgment or an injunction.<\/p>\n
Toward the end of the hearing, the judge wondered if the government\u2019s actions were intentional. Ross addressed that in a footnote in her response.<\/p>\n
\u201cThat was certainly not the intent and counsel respectfully disagree that they engaged in gamesmanship. Counsel asserted positions on behalf of Federal Defendants in good faith, focusing on the issues that Federal Defendants believe necessary to resolve this case, including this Court\u2019s jurisdiction, and sought to narrow the issues rather than to delay the proceedings,\u201d the footnote stated.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The amended Florida gaming compact with the Seminole Tribe of Florida that the federal government deemed as approved earlier this year does not violate the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA). That’s even though officials with the Interior Department conceded that federal law states that the location of a wager is based on where the bettor […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":45,"featured_media":191790,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[60,1074,18456],"tags":[],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n
Florida Sports Betting Update: Feds Say Compact Meets IGRA, State Law<\/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