Oppose Casinos” has submitted a legal filing in the Florida Supreme Court case concerning sports wagering. The organization asserts that Governor DeSantis’ agreement with the Seminole Tribe violates the Florida Constitution. They claim the deal broadens gambling without voter authorization, which is prohibited by law.
“Oppose Casinos” contends the agreement is a maneuver to circumvent the law and disregards voters who rejected expanding gambling. They are deeply troubled by this arrangement.
A document submitted by an individual not directly involved in a legal matter is referred to as an amicus curiae brief.
DeSantis’ legal representatives responded to the document. They indicated they had no objection to the request, but they would only endorse an extension if the opposing party received one as well. The judge assented and granted them additional time.
Legal specialists have identified certain difficulties associated with attempting to contest the accord in state court.
In iGB’s Global Politics series, legal expert Jeff Ifrah, head of Ifrah Law, discussed some of the challenges related to challenging the accord in state court.
Ifrah stated that one issue is standing. This implies that the individuals initiating the lawsuit must elucidate why they are negatively impacted by the accord.
He also mentioned that it is unclear whether the Seminole Tribe would be required to participate in the case. If so, then because they are a sovereign tribe, they would have to be sued in their own tribal court, not state court.
Nova Southeastern University professor Bob Jarvis indicated that the wording of Amendment 3 could pose a challenge. To support this claim, Jarvis cited the amendment’s definition of casino gambling. He also mentioned the amendment’s special exemption for Indian gaming.
Subscribe to the iGaming newsletter.