The petitioner, West Flagler Associates, has taken the final step before the U.S. Supreme Court decides whether to hear the case West Flagler, et al. vs. Haaland, et al. West Flagler Associates argues that the compact between Florida and the Seminole Tribe does not legally permit the Seminoles to offer mobile sports betting outside their territory.
Let’s take a closer look at how the conflict has evolved and its potential impact on the online sportsbooks industry.
The Last Word
West Flagler Associates (WFA) is a parimutuel betting company that wants its share of the nascent mobile sports betting industry in Florida. However, despite waging a legal battle that has bounced from courtroom to courtroom, the Seminole Indian Tribe of Florida has prevailed and restarted mobile betting throughout the state of Florida back in November.
WFA contends that the Seminoles’ compact with the state allows mobile betting only on their tribal lands. However, the Department of the Interior has not ruled it illegal and the Department of Justice recently wrote its response to the U.S. Supreme Court after West Flagler Associates filed a petition for the highest court in the land to hear their plea.
However, the last word belonged to WFA, allowing them an opportunity to respond, point by point, to the DOJ’s interpretation of the compact and why it should be allowed to continue. WFA has a starkly different point of view and if they can demonstrate that the DOJ’s legal theories are unsound it could sway the justices into hearing the case.
West Flagler Associates’ legal counsel was tasked with rebutting the claim by the DOJ that the Department of the Interior can only revoke a compact “if it violates IGRA, federal law, or trust obligations to tribes.” Therefore, the DOJ’s legal theory is just because the Department of the Interior did not sign off on the compact and does not invalidate it.
“In any event, the compact in this case is an agreement between two sovereigns – the State of Florida and the Seminole Tribe – concerning the Tribe’s own conduct of commercial gaming operations within the State,” states the DOJ’s response.
Regardless of how convincing WFA’s responses are, it should be noted that the U.S. Supreme Court hears only 150-200 cases per year of the roughly 7000 petitions that get submitted before it. This final rebuttal by WFA is the last step before the SCOTUS rules as to whether it will hear the case. Should they decline, there are no more available remediations at the federal level.
The Repercussions
Although online sports betting is a moneymaking bonanza for the operators, particularly if they have exclusivity as the Seminoles do in Florida with their Hard Rock sports betting app, the holy grail is iGaming, or online casino betting.
Should WFA fail in its bid to derail the Seminoles’ monopoly on sports betting in the Sunshine State, then it could set a precedent for tribal nations throughout the nation to take the same tact in bringing iGaming to their jurisdictions.
Most states have been reluctant to pass iGaming legislation, as many fear mobile casino gambling is far more addictive than digital sports betting. This is why only seven states including Connecticut, Delaware, Michigan, Nevada, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and West Virginia have legalized it. However, if tribal nations use the Seminoles’ compact with Florida as a blueprint, we may see them attempt to gain exclusivity in iGaming as well.
