By Jim Saunders © 2025 The Florida News Service
Tallahassee – The State hopes that a judge of the County Count of Leon will take legal action which alleges an agreement allowing the Seminole tribe of Florida to offer online sports betting violates a constitutional amendment of 2018 aimed at limiting the casino games.
The Office of Prosecutor General James Uthmeier tabled a 34 -page request last week to reject the trial, which was filed in April by Protect The Constitution, LLC.
The request has raised a series of arguments, in particular that the protection of the Constitution has no legal position to continue the dispute and that sports betting managed by tribe are authorized under the constitutional amendment.
Governor Ron Desantis reached the game agreement, known as compact, with the tribe in 2021. The agreement, which was ratified by the Legislative Assembly, allowed the tribe to accept mobile sports betting placed anywhere in the state, with the bets by servers on tribal land. Such a game began at the end of 2023.
The agreement, which also included things such as the tribe to offer craps and roulette games in its casinos, asked the state to receive a minimum of $ 2.5 billion in the first five years and possibly more dollars in the pact.
“This agreement guarantees hundreds of millions of dollars move to the tribe – money that supports the tribe to improve all aspects of life on tribal land,” said state lawyers in last week. “The state also benefits, with hundreds of millions of others in the annual income sharing, the accumulation of the State.
The 2018 constitutional amendment said that it “guarantees that Florida voters will have the exclusive right to decide to authorize the game of casino” in the state. It took a vote through an initiative of citizens “so that the casino game was authorized under the law of Florida”.
But at least part of the dispute as to whether sports betting need approval of voters focus on sports betting that cross servers on tribal property. The constitutional amendment, which received the support of the seminoles, included an exception for the game which takes place on tribal lands.
The amendment said: “Nothing here will be interpreted as limiting the capacity of the tribes of the state or the Amerindians to negotiate compacts of play in accordance with the Federal Regulatory Law of Indian Game for Casino on tribal land, or to affect any existing game on tribal land which have compacts executed by state and Amerindian tribes. Or IGRA plays a key role in tribal game problems across the country.
Last week’s request aimed at rejecting the trial argued that the provision of spell sports is in the exception of activities on tribal land and challenged that sports betting respected a definition of the constitutional amendment for the casino game. He said that sports betting were generally not in casinos in 2018, when the amendment passed.
In addition, the motion said: “Online sports betting are validly treated in the compact 2021, and compacts are exempt from the citizenship process.”
“The game of casino or not, sports betting has been properly authorized by the compact,” said the motion.
The trial, which requests a declaratory judgment and an injunction, appoints the defendants of the State, the Florida Gaming Control Commission and the members of the Commission. He identified the protection of the Constitution as a company in Delaware and said that each of its members “offers products in the state of Florida and has suffered damage, including a reduction in income, due to the legislation supposed to authorize the” casino game “throughout the state.” He did not appoint the members of the Constitution.
“Today, online sports betting occurs throughout the state of Florida,” said the trial. “But no initiative of citizens has never been tried to provide authorization. And the inhabitants of Florida have never been authorized to exercise their constitutional right to decide whether sports betting should be authorized throughout the state. ”
The trial intervened after the bet-mutual companies West Flagler Associates and Bonita-Fort Myers Corp. have submitted unsuccessful challenges in state and federal courts to sports betting. In a case of the field of state, the companies asked the Supreme Court of Florida to reduce the part of the pact which allowed sports betting, arguing that it had violated the constitutional amendment.
But the Supreme Court in March 2024 rejected the request of societies for what is known as a “brief of Warranto”, which means “by what authority” in Latin. The decision of the Supreme Court did not address the advantages of the trial, but said: “quo Warranto is not and has never been, the appropriate vehicle to obtain a declaration as to the substantial constitutionality of a law promulgated. For this reason, we refuse the petition because the reparation that the petitioners are looking for exceeds what the brief of quo Garranto provides. ”
The Constitution procedure is in force by the more typical legal process of the short circuit. The case is assigned to judge Jonathan Sjostrom.