Florida Sports Betting: A Legal Battle

The twentieth installment of the Political World Cup centers on the topic of sports wagering in the Sunshine State. This subject is currently a hot button issue, with the Seminole Tribe’s accord with the state facing legal hurdles.

This episode features Brant Aiden, Brandon Busman, and Robin Harrison, along with two legal specialists. They delve into the Florida sports betting case and its ramifications.

The episode examines the recent legal skirmishes, including the D.C. Circuit Court’s decision to overturn a previous ruling. This clears the path for the Seminoles to restart their sports betting platform in partnership with Hard Rock Digital, potentially within this month.

However, the ruling leaves some queries unresolved. It doesn’t definitively determine whether the agreement should be permitted without a constitutional alteration. This will be decided by Florida’s judicial system.

The episode explores the potential effects of the ruling, including whether it will grant the Seminoles a monopoly on Florida gaming. The experts, Nova Southeastern University Professor Bob Jarvis and Jeff Ifrah of Ifrah Law, offer contrasting viewpoints on what might transpire next.

For instance, Professor Jarvis argues that any legal dispute would be unsuccessful since the state constitution solely addresses a constitutional modification concerning casino gaming. He asserts that sports betting does not fall under this classification.

Jarvis acknowledges that the revival of sports betting could be postponed, but not for an extended period like the two years between 2021 and 2023. In essence, he believes any opposition is merely 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 reach the Supreme Court. At least, as a “narrow, specialized issue,” he’s uncertain if the Supreme Court would take it on.

He does anticipate challenges at the state level, although they might not necessarily reach a judge.

But what implications does this have for tribes in other states? In Texas, it’s improbable to result in a statewide agreement, but California tribes will be closely observing. Incidentally, Florida, Texas, and California are the most significant markets for offshore betting companies.

Ifrach adds that it’s unlikely to have an influence on California. The case is highly specific to Florida, and the D.C. court solely evaluated the agreement as a contract. He notes that there was no attempt to legalize non-reservation mobile betting.

Listen to the Political World Series on Apple Podcasts!

Sign up for the iGaming Newsletter.