The “No Gambling” advocacy group has submitted a friend-of-the-court filing in the Florida Supreme Court case concerning sports betting. This case, “Seminole Tribe v. Ron DeSantis,” involves the governor’s approval of an agreement between the Seminole Tribe and Florida.
The group argues that the governor’s approval of the agreement violates the “letter, spirit, and public policy” of the Florida Constitution. Specifically, they cite Article X, Section 30, which prohibits the expansion of casino wagering without voter approval. This provision is commonly known as Amendment 3, which was drafted by “No Gambling.”
A key question in the case is whether the term “casino wagering” in the Constitution applies to the expansion of sports betting throughout the state through the Seminole Tribe’s agreement with Florida.
The advocacy group argues that the agreement’s “hub-and-spoke” legal argument, which routes bets on tribal lands through tribal servers, “is so clearly false and designed to achieve a specific outcome as to be disrespectful to the Florida Constitution.”
“No Gambling” adds that this also “disrespects the voters who overwhelmingly supported Amendment 3 in 2018.”
The anti-gambling organization initially filed a request to submit a late friend-of-the-court filing, emphasizing its role in drafting the amendment.
A legal document, known as an Amicus Brief, was presented by an outside party not directly involved in the case.
Attorney DeSantis addressed the brief. They indicated that while they didn’t object to it, they would only endorse the extension if the accused also received an extension. The court approved the motion and granted the requested extension.
Legal professionals emphasized several challenges associated with contesting the agreement in state court.
In the iGB’s Political World series, legal expert Jeff Ifrah, head of Ifrah Law, identified several issues with challenging the agreement in state court.
Ifrah highlighted the issue of standing. This means the complainants need to justify why they are negatively impacted by the action.
He also questioned whether the Seminole Tribe should be considered an essential party in the court proceedings. If so, then as a sovereign entity, the Seminoles must be sued in their own tribal court, not state court.
Nova Southeastern University professor Bob Jarvis suggested that the wording of Amendment 3 could pose an obstacle. To support this, Jarvis emphasized the definition of casino gambling outlined in the amendment. He also pointed out the amendment’s specific exemption for Indian gaming.
Sign up for the iGaming newsletter.
