Feds substantiate validity of Florida sports betting deal in new brief
Justice Department attorney asserts Seminole compact doesn’t violate IGRA
The federal government submitted a new brief on November 10 in the ongoing court case centered around the legality of online sports betting in Florida, arguing that the state’s deal with the Seminole Tribe does not violate the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) or federal law.
At issue is a provision allowing for bets to be placed from anywhere in the state but processed via servers on tribal land, which two parimutuel operators contend runs afoul of the IGRA. In the brief, attorneys for the Department of Interior deemed the provision part of a “permissible hybrid approach” to offer online betting.
“The State and Tribe are free to denominate where the gaming occurs for state or tribal law purposes,” the federal defendants stated in the memo. “And moreover, IGRA permits the tribe and the state to allocate jurisdiction and regulatory authority over the gaming activity addressed in the compact consistent with federal law, including IGRA.”
In other words, the government is effectively substantiating the validity of the compact negotiated between the Seminole Tribe and the state legislature earlier this year. The compact was signed by Govenor Ron DeSantis, and after going unchallenged by Interior Secretary Deb Haaland, it was allowed to take effect.
However, in somewhat of a zag, the government also conceded in the brief that, according to federal law, a bettor’s location does in fact determine where a wager is placed.
“Accordingly, if a bet is placed within Florida, but outside the confines of the tribe’s Indian lands, the bet occurs outside of Indian lands and must be authorized by state law, rather than IGRA,” the brief stated.
Despite the concession – which could be viewed by the plaintiffs as an argument in their favor – the federal defendants went on to argue that the parimutuels’ argument is reflective of a “misunderstanding” of the greater compacting process, effectively rendering it moot.
Judge Dabney Friedrich instructed the delivery of the brief after a November 5 hearing in which she conveyed dissatisfaction at what she perceived to be a delay strategy on the part of government attorneys. She stated at the time that she would render a decision by November 15, but it remains to be seen if she’ll provide the plaintiffs with an opportunity to respond in light of the government’s slight shift in position.