The twentieth edition of the Political World Cup: Tribal Gaming Regulation – iGB
This is the twentieth installment of the Political World Cup: Brant Aiden, Brandon Busman, and Robin Harrison, along with two legal specialists, delve into the Florida sports wagering case in this special installment.
Home > Casino > Tribal Gaming Regulation > Political World Cup Episode 20 Concentrates on Florida Sports Wagering
Political World Cup Episode 20 Focuses on Florida Sports Wagering
The Florida sports wagering market came to a sudden halt just weeks after it commenced, as a legal challenge halted the Seminole Tribe’s agreement with the state.
After two years of legal disputes, the D.C. Circuit Court reversed the decision, opening the path for the Seminoles and Hard Rock Digital to relaunch. This could occur within the month.
Will Florida sports wagering face more obstacles?
But how strong is the ruling? The case cleared the way for a restart, but avoided a decision on whether the agreement should be permitted without a constitutional alteration. That question will be left for Florida courts to determine.
What this ultimately signifies, and whether it will provide the Seminoles a monopoly on Florida gaming, remains to be seen. As you’ll hear from our guests, Nova Southeastern University Professor Bob Jarvis and Ifra Law’s Jeff Ifra, there are differing opinions on what’s to come.
For instance, Professor Jarvis contends that any legal dispute will be unsuccessful because the state’s constitution only addresses a constitutional amendment regarding casino gaming. He highlights that sports wagering does not fall under that classification.
Jarvis recognizes that the resumption of sports betting might be postponed, but not for as long as the two-year period between 2021 and 2023. In essence, he believes that any challenge is simply delaying the inevitable.
Will the Florida sports betting case have an effect on other states?
In the meantime, Jeff Ifrach questions whether the case will even reach the Supreme Court. At the very least, he believes that as a “narrow, technical issue,” the Supreme Court won’t even consider it.
He does anticipate challenges at the state level, although they may not necessarily reach a judge.
But what does this signify for tribes in other states? In Texas, it’s improbable to lead to a statewide accord, but California tribes will be observing closely. Incidentally, Florida, Texas, and California are the largest markets for offshore betting companies.
Ifrach adds that it’s unlikely to have an impact on California. The case is highly specific to Florida, and the D.C. court only assessed the agreement as a contract. He points out that there was no attempt to legalize betting off-reservation.
Listen to The Political World Series on Apple Podcasts!
Sign up for the iGaming newsletter.
