Florida Supreme Court Requests Response from Gov. DeSantis Regarding Sports Betting Lawsuit

• The Florida Supreme Court has request a response from Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) regarding a Florida sports betting lawsuit
• West Flagler filed a lawsuit this week with the Florida Supreme Court to block sports betting in gaming compact
• West Flagler will have until Nov. 21 to file a response to DeSantis’ filing

Florida sports betting hopefuls are likely going to see any chance at a potential launch pushed back yet again.

The Florida Supreme Court today issued a briefing order to Gov. Ron DeSantis (R). In the order, DeSantis is requested to file a response by Nov. 1 to West Flagler Associates and Bonita-Fort Meyers Corporation’s lawsuit seeking to invalidate the online sports betting language in the state’s approved 2021 gaming compact with the Seminole Tribe.

It’s the latest development in what has been a long week of federal and state court rulings regarding Florida sports betting and the 2021 gaming compact.

West Flagler Will Have Chance to Respond to Gov. DeSantis

The Florida Supreme Court will also allow West Flagler to respond to DeSantis by Nov. 21.

West Flagler today also filed a “notice of constitutional question” to the Florida Supreme Court.

West Flagler has also submitted a "notice of constitutional question," which is basically just what the Florida Supreme Court will have to consider.

Does the inclusion of online sports betting in the 2021 Gaming Compact run afoul of Florida's constitution? pic.twitter.com/7gPYlQlzRl

— RLinnehanXL (@RLinnehanXl) September 29, 2023

West Flagler filed its lawsuit on Monday, Sept. 25, with the Florida Supreme Court around 11:30 p.m. Gov. DeSantis is named as the other party in the petition.

Raquel A. Rodriguez of Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC, counsel representing West Flagler in this Florida Supreme Court petition, wrote that the approved 2021 gaming compact between Florida and the Seminole Tribe, which included online sports betting exclusivity for the Seminole Tribe, violates Amendment 3 of the Florida Constitution. Florida voters approved the amendment in 2018, which declares that voters have the “exclusive right to decide whether to authorize casino gambling in the State of Florida.”

In the petition, West Flagler asserts that the “implementing law” authorizing the off-reservation sports betting provision of the compact expanded casino gambling throughout the state, not just tribal lands.

“Under the Florida Constitution, the people must approve any new casino gambling in the state through the citizens’ initiative process — the off-reservation sports betting provisions of the 2021 compact and the off-reservation portions of the implementing law violate Article X, Section 30 of the Florida Constitution. Neither the governor nor the legislature can expand gambling in Florida in derogation of the people’s constitutional final say,” Rodriguez wrote in the petition.

The petition notes that Gov. DeSantis exceeded his authority by entering into a compact that granted the Seminole Tribe exclusive rights to offer off-reservation online and in-person sports betting throughout the state.

Federal Courts Still Mulling Over Challenge

As the Florida courts decide whether to take up the petition, the Florida sports betting issue is still raging on at the federal court level.

Earlier this week, the U.S. Department of the Interior officially opposed a requested motion for stay of a mandate to restore a 2021 Florida Gaming Compact. West Flagler now has until Monday, Oct. 2, to respond to the Department of the Interior’s (DOI) official objection.

West Flagler requested a stay of the mandate on Friday, Sept. 15, close to midnight, intending to submit a writ of certiorari to hear the case with SCOTUS. West Flagler has until Monday, Dec. 11, to file with SCOTUS.

In its motion, West Flagler attorneys note that unless a stay is granted the court’s mandate will “upset the status quo” in Florida by permitting the Seminole Tribe to offer online sports betting.

In its objection to the motion for a stay, Rachel Heron, an attorney for the U.S. Department of Justice, representing the DOI, wrote that a “stay is not warranted, because any such petition could present no substantial question for Supreme Court review.”

“This Court reached a narrow, case-specific holding about the meaning of particular in one particular Compact under the Indian Gaming Regulator Act (IGRA). Its decision makes explicitly clear that the Compact does not purport to-and as a matter of law, could not-authorize the gaming activities outside Indian land that West Flagler believes are illegal, and that West Flagler’s dispute is instead with the Florida law that does authorize these activities,” Heron noted.