Upcoming Decision: Supreme Court to DetermineLegal Rights of Seminoles for Operating Hard Rock Casino's Online Betting Services
The U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) has opposed West Flagler Associates' (WFA) plea to the Supreme Court, pushing for the seminal sports betting case in Florida to proceed. The DOI filed its response Wednesday, contesting WFA's attempt to halt the Seminole Tribe's pending sports betting platform, Hard Rock Bet, in the state.
The DOI's 30-page response, filed two hours before the 5 p.m. ET deadline, challenges WFA's request for a Supreme Court stay on the mandate that would allow the Seminoles to launch their sports betting platform in Florida. Both parties are now waiting for a ruling on whether the mandate will stay in place.
Meanwhile, WFA has filed a case against Gov. Ron DeSantis in the Florida Supreme Court. The Seminoles, for their part, are expected to wait for the resolution of both cases before attempting to launch, to avoid having to take down the platform if needed. DeSantis has until Nov. 1 to respond to the initial filing.
In its Supreme Court response, DOI lawyers argue that WFA has not met the requirements to prove their case. WFA must show a reasonable probability that four Justices will find the issues sufficiently meritorious to grant certiorari, that a majority of Justices would vote to reverse a lower court ruling, and that by not granting the request, WFA would suffer irreparable harm. The DOI asserts that WFA does not satisfy any of these requirements.
WFA filed for a stay with the Supreme Court on Oct. 6, shortly after the U.S. District Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit denied a request to stay its mandate, making it legal for the Seminoles to launch. The tribe did not do so, and eight days later, WFA asked the Supreme Court to intervene. On Oct. 12, Justice John Roberts issued an order preventing the Seminoles from launching and requiring the DOI to respond by Oct. 18. From here, the court will determine whether to stay the mandate as WFA prepares to file its case by Nov. 20.
The DOI also claims that WFA's issues belong in state court, asserting that WFA cannot prove the compact is unlawful under the Unlawful Internet Gaming Enforcement Act (UIGEA) because it does not consider the option for the Seminoles to require cash funding for wagering accounts or whether other payment options would be lawful under UIGEA.
The DOI additionally takes issue with WFA's argument that a Seminole monopoly will cause irreparable harm to parimutuels. The DOI states that WFA has not proven such harm to its business or the "citizenry of Florida," and further maintains that the current case is not the correct venue for seeking such relief.
In essence, the DOI's argument is that Secretary Deb Haaland was within her rights to approve the compact, but that she and the lower court did not approve the compact's contents.
In a separate development, the anti-casino group "No Casinos" has filed an amicus curaie brief with the Florida Supreme Court in the West Flagler case against Gov. DeSantis. The group, a significant contributor to Disney, believes that DeSantis and the legislature violated the "spirit and public policy" behind Amendment 3, which requires voter approval for any expansion of gaming, including online sports betting.
Under the 2021 compact, the Seminoles would hold a monopoly on retail and digital sports betting, and any bet placed anywhere in Florida would flow through a server on Indian land, making it legally considered a bet on Indian lands. The compact and the federal law governing gaming both outline guidelines only for gaming on tribal land.
The ensuing legal conflict continues to unravel, with the Seminole Tribe operating as the sole legal sportsbook operator in the state while new state court litigation challenges the sports betting expansion, claiming voter approval is required. The National Indian Gaming Commission is keeping a close eye on the situation, as IGRA remains a key federal law in the dispute.
- The DOI believes that West Flagler Associates (WFA) has not met the necessary criteria to halt the Seminole Tribe's sports betting platform, Hard Rock Bet, through the Supreme Court, arguing that WFA must demonstrate a reasonable probability of winning over four Justices, showing a majority would reverse a lower court decision, and proving irreparable harm if the request is denied.
- In its Supreme Court response, the DOI asserts that WFA's issues belong in state court, claiming that the Unlawful Internet Gaming Enforcement Act (UIGEA) does not prohibit the Seminoles from implementing cash funding for wagering accounts or using other lawful payment options.
- The DOI also counters WFA's argument that a Seminole monopoly on sports betting would cause irreparable harm to parimutuels, arguing that WFA has not proven such harm to its business or the "citizenry of Florida," and further contending that the current case is not the correct venue for seeking such relief.
