TRIBAL GAMING IN FLORIDA
interpretation of “on Indian lands” was reasonable. Several states define the location of a mobile wager as the place where the server is located, and not where the mobile phone connected to the server is located. 213 In the Interior Department’s letter analyzing the 2021 Compact, these laws were used to show that the Compact “reflects [the] modern understanding of how to regulate online gaming.” 214 The emphasis on the “modern understanding” further underscores that deeming wagers to occur at server locations is a reasonable interpretation of the “on Indian lands” requirement. The interpretation is further supported by instances where servers located off Indian lands were used to circumvent tribal exclusivity over gaming. Previous tribal-state compacts negotiated in New York provided tribes with exclusivity over gaming within a 10,500-square- mile geographic area. 215 When facing complaints that the state had violated the exclusivity provisions by authorizing mobile wagering within that zone, the state argued that wagering did not take place in the exclusivity zones because no servers were located there. 216 In this way, the server location was used to undermine negotiated tribal gaming rights. The consistent use of server locations both on and off tribal land further shows that the Secretary’s interpretation of the “on Indian lands” requirement was reasonable. Because the government could have provided support for the Secretary’s decision under both the Chevron ambiguity and reasonable interpretation steps and failed to do so, it did not adequately protect the Seminole Tribe’s interests. Thus, the government did not live up to its trust obligation to the tribe as required by federal principles and IGRA itself. B. The final orders dismissal of the tribe’s interests While the government failed to meet its trust obligations to the tribe, the court similarly undermined the policy goals and
purposes of IGRA in the analysis used in the final order. IGRA was enacted with the goals of promoting tribal self-sufficiency, economic development, and strong tribal governments. 217 By denying the tribe the ability to participate in defense of the 2021 Compact, the court undermined the tribe’s ability to be self-sufficient in defending its interests. Likewise, the court’s invalidation of the entire Compact despite its severability clause damaged the tribe’s economic development. The court undermined IGRA’s goal of tribal self-sufficiency by preventing the Seminole Tribe from advocating on its own behalf. 218 As previously discussed, the court dismissed the tribe’s motion to intervene in the case even though the 2021 Compact’s invalidation was more impactful to the tribe than any other party. 219 The court determined that the Department of the Interior shared the Tribe’s position on the key issue – in the court’s view, that the “Compact is consistent with IGRA.” 220 However, this dramatically simplified the key issue of the case. The government and Seminole Tribe ultimately agreed that the 2021 Compact was consistent with IGRA, but the government’s arguments on the merits of the case completely abandoned the hub-and-spoke model carefully negotiated by Florida and the Tribe. 221 The government made no attempt to justify that the server location met the “on Indian lands” requirement under IGRA. 222 Thus, the “shared position” cited by the court was significantly weakened by the federal government’s merit argument in a way that harmed the Seminole Tribe’s interests in the outcome of the litigation. The court also denied the tribe the opportunity to advocate for its ability to intervene at the oral hearing. 223 In the almost two-hour long hearing, representatives for the tribe said less than fifty words in total. 224 The only contribution the tribe was able to make during the oral argument was to ask if the motion to intervene could be discussed at a subsequent hearing. 225 The
213 Mich. Comp. Laws 432.304(2); N.J. Stat. § 5:12-95.20; N.Y. Rac. Pari-Mut. Wag. & Breed. Law § 1367- a(i). 214 Newland, supra note 89. 215 Heidi Mcneil Staudenmaier and Paloma Diaz, What’s In the Cards for Tribal Sports Betting in 2021 and Beyond? , 25 GAMING L. REV. 288
(2021). 216 Id . 217 25 U.S.C. § 2702(1) 218 West Flagler . 219 Id . 220 West Flagler at *15. 221 Defendant’s Amended Response to Motion for Summary Judgment, West Flagler. 222 Id . 223 Hearing Transcript, supra note 147.
224 Id . 225 Id .
PAGE 20
IMGL MAGAZINE | APRIL 2023
Made with FlippingBook flipbook maker