|
Dear USET/USET SPF Family,
We write in celebration of the U.S. Supreme Court’s denial of a petition for certiorari challenging the Department of the Interior’s approval of the Seminole Tribe of Florida’s 2021 gaming compact that contains online sports betting provisions. This case paves the way for Tribal Nations to engage in internet gaming.
Seminole and the State of Florida negotiated a compact under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) that included online sports betting, where wagers could be placed by patrons physically located outside Indian lands, and they were deemed to occur where received on Indian lands. Under this agreement, Seminole could exercise regulatory jurisdiction over the entire sports betting gaming transaction, including placement of the wagers. Florida passed a state law implementing the agreement and authorizing placement of the wagers off Indian lands, and Interior deemed the compact approved under IGRA.
Thereafter, competing gaming interests challenged the compact on a number of grounds, and the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia struck the compact down on the basis that it purported to authorize gaming activity occurring off Indian lands. On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reversed, recognizing the compact did not authorize placement of wagers off Indian lands but rather properly addressed the gaming activity that was otherwise subject to approval under state law. The Circuit Court denied the plaintiffs’ request for a rehearing en banc and motion to stay, and the U.S. Supreme Court also denied their stay request. The plaintiffs thereafter submitted a petition for certiorari.
The Court’s June 17, 2024 denial of the petition for certiorari now ends this long federal battle. The litigation confirms that IGRA can do three important things: (1) IGRA and an IGRA compact can authorize portions of a gaming transaction that occur on Indian lands even when a portion of the gaming activity does not; (2) off-Indian lands gaming activity, such as placement of a wager, can be addressed in a compact when the gaming activity is directly related to the operation of gaming activity occurring on Indian lands; and (3) a state can shift regulatory jurisdiction over the off-Indian lands gaming activity to a tribe via a compact by deeming the activity to take place on the tribe’s Indian lands.
Seminole also won a recent victory in the Florida Supreme Court in March of this year. The plaintiffs there argued the Florida statute authorizing placement of the sports betting wagers by patrons physically located off the Tribe’s lands violated the Florida Constitution. The plaintiffs argued that a provision in the Florida constitution prohibits authorization of new casino gambling without a referendum vote by the public, and they asserted the online sports betting in the compact did not fall under the existing exemption for Tribal gaming. Florida and Seminole filed briefs in opposition, and the case was ultimately dismissed on procedural grounds.
Worth noting was the plaintiffs’ attempt to put at the forefront of their petition for certiorari the argument that gaming exclusivity rights for gaming occurring off Indian lands is race-based in violation of the U.S. Constitution’s equal protection requirements. In response, Justice Kavanaugh made two statements that—when paired with others he has made in the Indian Child Welfare Act context—should cause concern for future equal protection challenges to federal Indian laws. When the Court denied the stay request, Justice Kavanaugh said: “To the extent that a separate Florida statute . . . authorizes the Seminole Tribe—and only the Seminole Tribe—to conduct certain off-reservation gaming operations in Florida, the state law raises serious equal protection issues.” When the Court later denied the petition for certiorari, the notice said: “Justice Kavanaugh would grant the petition for a writ of certiorari.” USET SPF has closely tracked cases challenging federal Indian laws and programs as unconstitutional, as they risk precedent that could hamper the United States’ delivery on its trust and treaty obligations.
USET SPF is proud to have supported Seminole in this litigation, both participating in a Tribal amicus brief in the federal case and submitting a letter to the federal government urging appeal of the initial District Court ruling striking the compact down.
USET SPF Alert June 30, 2024
Amicus Brief August 24, 2022
USET SPF Letter Re: Call to Appeal Harmful Decision in Seminole Tribe of Florida’s Compact Litigation December 14, 2021
“Seminole has always served as a driving force of innovation for Tribal Nations’ gaming operations. It is through gaming that many Tribal Nations have generated government revenue we otherwise lack due to inequities that include limitations on our sovereign authority to tax and the United States’ failure to deliver on its trust and treaty obligations. We celebrate Seminole’s achievement, which is a great win for all of Indian Country.” - USET SPF President Francis
The Case Number before the U.S. Supreme Court is 23-862, and the Case Number before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit is 21-5265.
For more information, please contact Liz Malerba, USET SPF Director of Policy and Legislative Affairs, at lmalerba@usetinc.org or Katie Klass, USET SPF General Counsel, at kklass@usetinc.org.
|
