Florida Requests Court Dismiss Lawsuit Over Gaming Compact

The battle over Florida sports betting isn’t over quite yet.

The Attorney General’s office has filed a motion to dismiss a new lawsuit claiming the state violated its constitution when it expanded gambling with a 2021 gaming compact. The motion asserts that the lawsuit addresses an issue that has been debated in Florida and federal courts over the past few years. Each lawsuit failed as courts ruled the compact was legal. 

The plaintiff, Protect the Constitution LLC, argues that the state Constitution requires public input before any expansion of the gambling market. That’s because of a 2018 amendment, which was approved by over 70% of voters. This sent a strong message that the people of Florida want a say in the expansion of gambling. 

“This amendment ensures that Florida voters shall have the exclusive right to decide whether to authorize casino gambling in the State of Florida. This amendment requires a vote by citizens’ initiative pursuant to Article XI, section 3, in order for casino gambling to be authorized under Florida law. This section…[makes] citizens’ initiatives the exclusive method of authorizing casino gambling.” Florida Constitutional Article X Section 3 reads. 

The state continues to assert that the above didn’t apply to the gaming compact, a position that courts have agreed with in past lawsuits.

State Stands By Compact’s Legitimacy

The state has refused to budge on the 2021 gambling compact. Their defense hinges on a pair of arguments that helped stave off previous attempts to cancel the compact. 

The first involves the location of the servers used for online sports betting. The Seminole Tribe hosts the Hard Rock Bet servers on their tribal lands. The state has successfully argued that the location of the servers means the expansion falls under the law of the Federal Indian Gaming Compact, not the state constitution.

The second defense covers the points related to the wording in Article X, Section 3 of the Constitution. It refers to “casino gambling”, which is vague and typically refers to casino-style games, rather than sports betting. There is also a subsection that explicitly states that the amendment is not intended to hinder the expansion of tribal gaming.