Last November, District Court Judge Dabney Friedrich ruled that the compact signed by Florida Governor Ron DeSantis and the Seminole Tribe was illegal; the Department of Interior (DOI) appealed, and the appeals court has had the case for over a year.
However, progress is being made in the key battle between the Seminoles and two smaller casinos over dealing with sports betting, as oral arguments began December 14 in the District of Columbia. At stake is the resumption of sports betting in the Sunshine State, stopped earlier in the year because of a lawsuit, according to Legal Sports Report.
The rest of what follows is shrouded in legal-ese.
Whatever the D.C. Court of Appeals decides will be handed to other panel judges within 180 days. The second group can agree or disagree with the first batch of judges. A final decree in this court could take 12 months.
In its closing brief, the tribe made a handful of claims before the appellate court.
“The District Court misstated the rule as requiring only that it limit its analysis to the four Rule 19(b) factors, ignoring the admonition that it must also give great weight to the Tribe’s immunity when doing so,” the tribe said.
Had the court done that, it would have had no choice but allow the tribe to intervene in the case. The federal government also failed to bring this up.
The question: if the tribe intervened, would that mean the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) was not subject to judicial review? No, the tribe responded.
Another argument speaks to the District Court, which concluded that the tribe was a required party. Therefore they should have been allowed to participate in the case.
The tribe also argues that the DOI did not represent the tribal interests as best they could. The brief postulated that the tribe and the feds have different interests on a solution.
The feds brief was just that, brief, arguing that the D.C. court made a mistake when it overturned the 2021 compact. IGRA allows compacts to address situations that occur off tribal land without compliance with state law.
Together, the oral arguments before the Court of Appeals in D.C. December 14 lasted just over an hour, but the decision from the judges could take weeks.
The IGRA oversees gambling on tribal lands, but Hamish Hume, the attorney for two parimutuels in Florida, said that U.S. law insists U.S. statutes say the location of gambling rests where the bet was placed and accepted.
The Seminole compact of 2021 said wagers occur on tribal lands no matter where the bettor is located, so long as the bettor is in Florida. And therein lies the conundrum, and to Hume, therein lies the illegality of the compact and the DOI’s approval of said compact.
The DOI’s answer to Hume says Secretary Deb Haaland had no grounds to reject the compact because “it does not violate federal law.” In addition, a lawyer for the state of Florida had a chance to ask the court for permission to remove references to gambling and still approve the compact. And the tribe asked for an opportunity to intervene.
The compact gives the Seminoles a clear monopoly on sports betting in that statewide mobile wagering would happen with servers on Seminole land. If that is accurate, then the compact does not violate IGRA as it oversees gambling on tribal lands.
The Florida legislature approved a new compact with the Seminoles that will bring sports betting to Florida and $2.5 billion to the state treasury over the next five years.
The hearing on December 14 provided the opportunity to convince the appellate judges, but the three judge panel may not be in consensus on the issue, according to Sports Handle.
Judge Robert Wilkins could be swayed to reverse the district court decision.
Barry Richards, representing the tribe, said a reversal would be a favorable outcome.
Hume had other ideas. “IGRA has only one approval provision,” Hume said. “The secretary may approve compacts that allow for [gambling], but there is not a capital A ‘authorize’ on Indian lands and then a ‘wink-wink nudge’ that it’s also legal off Indian lands.”
Judge Karen Henderson seemed by her questioning to favor the lower court decision that the compact is not legal.
Judge J. Michelle Childs gave no indication which way she is leaning.
