Testimony was heard last week in the combined federal and state lawsuits involving the Seminole Tribe of Florida and the state of Florida. U.S. District Judge Robert Hinkle presided over the non-jury trial in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida in Tallahassee. No immediate ruling is expected. The outcome of the trial could have a major impact on the future of gambling in the state.
The state and tribe are suing each other after lawmakers earlier this year failed to approve a renegotiated 20-year compact from 2010. That original agreement granted the Seminoles exclusive rights to offer blackjack for five years at five of its seven casinos; it generated about $1.7 billion for the state. The new arrangement would have extended the tribe’s blackjack exclusivity and add craps and roulette, in return for paying the state $3 billion over seven years.
Although the five-year provision of the compact expired in July 2015, blackjack still is being played at the tribe’s casinos, said Seminole Gaming Chief Executive Officer Jim Allen. He explained, that’s because the state failed to negotiate in good faith and broke its promise by allowing horse and dog tracks to offer games like electronic blackjack, played with buttons instead of cards and a dealer who appears on a TV screen.
State attorney J. Carter Andersen said e-blackjack has never been considered a card game precisely because it doesn’t use “tangible cards.” He stated the games are a permissible form of slot machines. Andersen added, many parimutuels “push the limit of state law to what they can get away with.” State attorneys said the tribe was attempting to keep its blackjack tables illegally. Testifying for the state, top regulators said they began to crack down on illegal card operations once they became aware of it.
After hearing arguments from the tribe and the state, Hinkle said it seemed Florida regulators allowed an “end run” around a state law banning certain card games at dog and horse tracks. He said it looked like the state did not address the problem until the tribe raised it in its lawsuit.
If Hinkle rules against the Seminoles, and they have to give up blackjack exclusivity, the tribe could lose hundreds of millions in card game revenue and 3,600 casino workers could lose their jobs. At the same time, the state would also lose shares or revenue and unemployment numbers would increase. If Hinkle rules against the state, Florida would lose tens of millions of dollars in revenue it still receives from the Seminole Tribe.
As the trial wound down, Hinkle suggested the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, which regulates gambling under Scott, violated the compact with the tribe. He indicated he’ll rule that the Seminole Tribe can continue to offer blackjack. A win for the tribe could lead to a new round of negotiations over gambling with the state.
The recent removal of James Billie as chairman of the Seminole Tribe due to “various issues and procedures of the chairman’s office” is unlikely to affect future negotiations between the tribe and the state, sources said. Billie has said he plans to run for re-election.
The News Service of Florida reported to date, Florida taxpayers have paid more than $260,000 to private lawyers to represent the state in the dispute.
