Lawsuit Challenges Florida’s Sports Betting Compact

A new lawsuit in Florida has challenged the constitutionality of the state’s online sports betting sector. Filed in Tallahassee, the suit complains that the authorization of sports betting off tribal lands without voter approval violates Florida Amendment 3.

Another Lawsuit Has Challenged the Controversial Compact

According to gaming lawyer Daniel Wallach, the lawsuit was filed by Protect The Constitution, a Delaware-based limited liability company, which emphasized that the agreement between the state of Florida and the Seminole Tribe is unconstitutional.

For context, voters previously voted that any expansion of tribal gaming outside tribal lands must be approved via a voter referendum. However, the agreement with the Seminole Tribe which allowed it to offer online sports betting across Florida was never approved by voters.

Today, online sports betting occurs throughout Florida. But no citizens’ initiative has ever been held to provide authorization. And the people of Florida have never been allowed to exercise their constitutional right to decide whether sports betting should be authorized.

Complaint excerpt

For context, Governor Ron DeSantis and the state legislature enacted a compact with the tribe, which was originally signed in 2021. Per this agreement, the Seminole Tribe will remain the only entity allowed to offer wagering on sports.

Protect The Constitution asserted that the decision to allow the Seminole Tribe to operate an online sportsbook has effectively violated Floridians’ constitutional rights.

Proponents Say the Compact Does Not Violate the Constitution

Proponents of the compact have previously argued that the compact doesn’t violate the constitution since the online betting servers are technically based on tribal land.

However, many have disagreed with this notion. Protect The Constitution’s legal challenge isn’t the first and follows similar lawsuits opposing the compact.

In a subsequent post, Daniel Wallach posed two “threshold questions,” asking whether sports betting is a subset of casino gaming and whether a bet placed by a customer on state land but received by a computer server on Indian lands constitutes an “off-reservation” bet.

Wallach noted that the answer to both has to be “yes” in order for the plaintiff to win.

An Earlier Challenge Failed

In 2021, West Flagler Associates began a lengthy battle against the compact, arguing that the compact was unconstitutional. A federal district judge agreed with West Flagler at first but the decision was eventually struck down by the US Court of Appeals, which backed the compact.

West Flagler eventually tried to get the US Supreme Court involved but the court did not agree to review the case.