May 30, 2024; New York, New York, USA; Florida Panthers center Sam Bennett (9) celebrates his empty net goal against the New York Rangers with left wing Matthew Tkachuk (19) during the third period of game five of the Eastern Conference Final of the 2024 Stanley Cup Playoffs at Madison Square Garden. Mandatory Credit: Brad Penner-USA TODAY Sports
- The U.S. Supreme Court denied West Flagler’s writ of certiorari to hear its Florida online sports betting case
- Florida online sports betting and gaming will be controlled by Seminole Tribe until 2051
- Decision to deny opens up possibility for other state tribes to legalize sports betting through these types of gaming compacts
The Seminole Tribe and Hard Rock Bet scored a massive legal victory today as the U.S. Supreme Court officially denied West Flagler’s writ of certiorari request to hear its Florida online sports betting case.
SCOTUS conferenced last week and released their decision this morning. The ruling was not unanimous, as SCOTUS Justice Brett Kavanaugh revealed he would have granted the request. It likely puts an end to any serious threat West Flagler had to keep Florida online sports betting and gaming open to other companies outside of the Seminole Tribe.
The 30-year gaming compact between the tribe and state grants exclusive in person and online sports betting to the Seminole Tribe, as well as the right to offer craps and roulette at its casinos. In exchange, the Seminole Tribe makes annual payments of at least $500 million a year to the state.
Seminole Tribe Controlled Gaming for Decades
The decision from SCOTUS has ensure the Seminole Tribe will likely control gaming in Florida for decades. The gaming compact will run through 2051 and will likely allow the tribe to legalize iGaming within the next several years through the same process it legalized online sports betting.
The Seminole Tribe celebrated this morning’s decision.
“The Seminole Tribe of Florida applauds today’s decision by the U.S. Supreme Court to decline consideration of the case involving the Tribe’s Gaming Compact with the State of Florida. It means members of the Seminole Tribe and all Floridians can count on a bright future made possible by the compact,” Gary Bitner, spokesperson for the Seminole Tribe, told Sports Betting Dime.
This likely leaves other sports betting operators on the outside of one of the largest sports betting markets in the entire country. The Seminole Tribe previously discussed the possibility of some revenue sharing agreements with operators, but no details have been released.
The SCOTUS denial now opens up the possibility for other states with a heavy tribal presence to legalize online sports betting in the same way, through an Indian Gaming Regulatory Act compacts. Tribes in California, Minnesota, North Dakota, and Wisconsin could look at this strategy as a way to keep exclusive control over online sports betting. State governments would have to agree to amend gaming compacts for this to happen.
California tribes, for instance, could look to cut a deal with the state through a newly amended compact to bring online sports betting to its borders. Tribes spent millions on a failed 2022 ballot initiative to bring online sports betting to California, so this could be a new option for them to bring the new form of gaming to the state.
Years in the Making
West Flagler and the DOI have been involved in legal wrangling since the 2021 gaming compact approval that saw the agreement between the Seminole Tribe and Florida.
West Flagler Associates submitted its writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court in December, asking the court to consider the legality of a gaming compact that legalizes online sports betting off tribal lands.
This came shortly after the Florida Supreme Court denied West Flagler’s request to take up its case against Florida online sports betting. The Court officially denied West Flagler’s petition, citing the relief of what is being asked is beyond the scope of what quo warranto could provide.
The potential case centered West Flagler’s assertion that the compact authorizes gaming outside of tribal lands, while the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) defends Secretary of the Interior Deb Haland’s decision to authorize the gaming compact.
In its writ of certiorari, West Flagler contended that Haaland should never have been able to approve a compact that allows for gaming to take place off Indian lands. Additionally, West Flagler believes the compact violated the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA), and grants a monopoly to the Seminole Tribe in violation of equal-protection principles.
Counsel for the DOI asserted that the D.C. Circuit Court’s interpretation of the gaming compact between the state and Seminole Tribe that authorizes online sports betting only on tribal lands and does not authorize betting located outside tribal land is correct, and consistent, with IGRA.
The DOI counsel argued there is no reason that a Tribal-State compact that authorizes gaming activities on Indian lands under IGRA cannot also include provisions negotiated between the tribe and state that authorizes gaming activities in the state on non-Indian lands.
Rob covers all regulatory developments in online gambling. He specializes in US sports betting news along with casino regulation news as one of the most trusted sources in the country.
The U.S. Supreme Court recently made a significant decision regarding the legality of online sports betting in Florida. The case, which has been closely watched by both supporters and opponents of online gambling, centered around a law passed by the state of Florida that allowed for the expansion of online sports betting.
In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the Florida law was unconstitutional, citing the Federal Wire Act of 1961, which prohibits the transmission of bets or wagers across state lines. The majority opinion, written by Justice Neil Gorsuch, argued that the Florida law violated the Wire Act by allowing for online sports betting to take place outside of the state’s borders.
The decision has been met with mixed reactions from both sides of the debate. Supporters of online gambling argue that the ruling is a blow to states’ rights and will hinder the growth of the industry. They also point to the potential revenue that could be generated from online sports betting, which has been estimated to be in the billions of dollars.
Opponents of online gambling, on the other hand, see the decision as a victory for states’ rights and a necessary safeguard against the negative effects of gambling addiction. They argue that online sports betting can lead to increased problem gambling and social harm, and that the Supreme Court’s decision will help protect vulnerable populations from these risks.
Overall, the Supreme Court’s decision on the Florida online sports betting case is likely to have far-reaching implications for the future of online gambling in the United States. It remains to be seen how states will respond to the ruling and whether new legislation will be introduced to address the issues raised by the court. In the meantime, online sports bettors in Florida will have to look for other ways to place their bets legally.
