The Seminole Tribe has recently published a number of online job openings at their Florida casinos for sportsbook employees and experienced craps and roulette dealers, perhaps signaling that these gaming opportunities could launch sooner than many have expected. could be a reality sooner than expected if these job postings are any accurate indication.
The tribe is actively looking for experienced craps and roulette dealers, employees, and have held hiring events in New York, Pennsylvania, and Connecticut for experienced craps/roulette dealers who are willing to relocate to Florida.
The Seminole Tribe recently published the job openings on its after a three-judge panel for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia unanimously agreed to a ruling that declared its 2021 Florida gaming compact violated the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA). The gaming compact granted the Seminole Tribe exclusive rights to online sports betting through a “hub-and-spoke” system, as well as expanded gaming rights, in exchange for at least $2.5 billion over the first five years.
If no appeal is made, the tribe could potentially launch the new gaming opportunities on Aug. 21. The Seminole tribe has not responded to a request for comment on when it hopes to launch these offerings.
Even more intriguing the Seminole Tribe is holding hiring events in NY, Connecticut, and Pennsylvania looking for experienced craps/roulette dealers willing to relocate to Florida.
RLinnehanXL (@RLinnehanXl)
Florida Sports Betting Launch Hinging on Appeal
Clearly the Seminole Tribe is getting ready for a potential launch, but when could this even happen?
West Flagler and Associates, the plaintiffs who brought the case before the court, have 52 days from the June 30 ruling, or Aug. 21, to apply for an appeal or an “en banc hearing” with the U.S. Court of Appeals. If an appeal is not made, the court s mandate will go into effect and the Seminole Tribe could launch sports betting, craps, and roulette on this date.
However, if West Flagler and Associates choose to appeal the ruling it could be years before a final decision is made. It could be heard again by the U.S. Court of Appeals, or the plaintiffs could file for a writ of certiorari to have the decision heard before the Supreme Court of the United States.
But is an appeal likely? Would an appeal even be granted? Daniel Wallach, a gaming law attorney, Founder of Wallach Legal and UNHLaw Sports Wagering, told Sports Betting Dime that en banc hearings are rarely granted by the U.S. Court of Appeals. The court typically grants only one review for every 500 three-judge panel decisions, which makes this initial decision very important.
Even if a rehearing is denied, Wallach said West Flagler’s pursuit of a petition for writ of certiorari before the Supreme Court could also delay the final mandate necessary from the U.S. Court of Appeals.
As long as the plaintiffs are willing to “take the distance, which is SCOTUS,” the revival of sports betting in Florida is unlikely to occur until all federal court processes are completed, Wallach said. This could be another year or two years before a decision is made.
Writ of certiorari is rarely granted by the Supreme Court, Wallach said, but SCOTUS could be intrigued by this case.
But just because writ of certiorari is rarely granted by SCOTUS, Wallach said, it does not mean it will happen. This result of the case has national implications for tribal gaming and non-tribal sports betting operators.
“There are two factors that suggest the Supreme Court would be willing to take this case. The circuit court split and the importance of the issue across the country impact tribes, non-tribal operators, in the vast majority of states,” he said.
U.S. Court of Appeals Rule in Favor of Tribe
The U.S. Court of Appeals levied their decision on Friday, June 30, vacating the opinion of the district court and ruling in favor of the U.S. Secretary of the Interior Deb Haaland, who initially approved the gaming compact.
“The District Court erred by reading into the Compact a legal effect it does not (and cannot) have, namely, independently authorizing betting by patrons located outside of the Tribe’s lands. Rather, the Compact itself authorizes only the betting that occurs on the Tribe’s lands; in this respect it satisfied IGRA. Whether it is otherwise lawful for a patron to place bets from non-tribal land within Florida may be a question for that State’s courts, but it is not the subject of this litigation and not for us to decide,” the judges wrote in their ruling.
Florida’s sports betting journey began in 2021 when the state approved a 30-year gaming compact that granted the Seminole Tribe exclusive retail and online sports betting rights in the state. The gaming compact granted the Seminole Tribe exclusive rights to online sports betting through a “hub-and-spoke” system, as well as expanded gaming rights, in exchange for at least $2.5 billion over the first five years. The “hub and spoke” system allowed sports bets to be placed anywhere in the state as long as they were processed by computer servers located on Tribal Land.
The gaming compact was thrown out by Friedrich in November 2021. Ultimately, Friedrich determined the compact violated the conditions set forth by IGRA that limits tribal gaming to the confines of tribal lands. The Seminole Tribe argued in the gaming compact that because the servers that processed the online sports bets were located on tribal land, then the bets themselves were placed on tribal lands.
The three-judge panel for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the the District of Columbia disagreed with her ruling.
“We see the case differently. IGRA ‘regulate[s] gaming on Indian lands, and nowhere else.’ Michigan v. Bay Mills Indian Cmty., 572 U.S. 782, 795 (2014). Thus, to be sure, an IGRA gaming compact can legally authorize a tribe to conduct gaming only on its own lands. But at the same time, IGRA does not prohibit a gaming compact—which is, at bottom, an agreement between a tribe and a state—from discussing other topics, including those governing activities “outside Indian lands[.]” Id. at 796. In fact, IGRA expressly contemplates that a compact ‘may’ do so where the activity is ‘directly related to’ gaming,” the judges wrote in the ruling.
