• No Casinos Inc. submitted its amicus curiae brief to the Florida Supreme Court 
• The group says the Florida gaming compact and legalized online sports betting runs afoul of the Florida Constitution
• Hub-and-spoke model for Florida online sports betting is “disrespectful to the Florida Constitution”

No Casinos, Inc., has had its say with the Florida Supreme Court on the future of Florida online sports betting.

The anti-gambling group submitted its amicus curiae brief to the court, claiming the proposed hub-and-spoke model for Florida online sports betting is “disrespectful to the Florida Constitution” and runs afoul of Amendment 3, which requires any new casino gambling laws to be approved by state voters.

Amicus curiae briefs, or “friend-of-the-court” briefs, are notices written by groups or individuals not directly involved in a legal case, but who could have some expertise or knowledge a court may find useful in making it decision.

Gaming Compact Violates Spirit of Florida Constitution

In its 33-page brief, No Casinos Inc.’s counsel leaned heavily into the 2018 voter-approved Amendment 3, arguing that voters should have the final say on any expansion of gambling in the state.

“This Court should grant the Petition for Writ of Quo Warranto. As the author of and most visible advocate for Amendment 3, amicus curiae, No Casinos, Inc., proceeds on the premise that sports betting, which is permitted statewide under the Compact and challenged statutes, is within the definition of casino gambling in article X, section 30, Florida Constitution,” Beverly A. Pohl, counsel for No Casinos, Inc., wrote in the brief.

No Casinos, Inc., took aim at the hub-and-spoke model for online sports betting in the Florida gaming compact. The “hub-and-spoke” system allows sports bets to be placed anywhere in the state as long as they are processed by computer servers located on Tribal Land.

Pohl noted in the brief in the hub-and-spoke system is “so transparently false and outcome driven that it is disrespectful to the Florida Constitution” and also disrespectful to the voter who approved Amendment 3 in 2018.

“Notably, federal defendants in related litigation have taken the position that ‘under federal law, the location of the bettor determines where the bet is placed,’ and that a tribal-state compact cannot, by fiat, change the location of the bettor,” Pohl wrote.

Allowing online sports betting throughout the state with this model is “based on a legal fiction that tribal servers render the entire state to be Indian land for mobile gambling purpose.”

Voters should have the final say in authorizing statewide sports betting, according to No Casinos, Inc., and the court has the discretionary power and “the duty to invalidate the respondents’ actions in approving the sports betting provisions of the compact and in passing implementing statutes.”

What’s Next?

The state will now have an opportunity to respond to No Casinos, Inc.’s, amicus curiae brief. There is no deadline for a response from the state.

West Flagler filed its original lawsuit on Sept. 26 and the Florida Supreme Court issued a briefing order to Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) on Sept. 29. In the order, DeSantis was 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.

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

The post No Casinos Inc. Believes Voters Should Have Final Say on Florida Sports Betting appeared first on Sports Betting Dime.