TRIBAL GAMING
Tribe a statewide monopoly over online sports betting.” 26 In an Equal Protection analysis, courts apply a level of scrutiny depending on the classification at issue. The level of scrutiny applied to a state law that treats similarly situated people differently is subject to a rational basis standard of review. In West Flagler, the equal protection challenge failed as a matter of law. 27 The court relied on its own precedent to quickly reach this conclusion providing that “[p]romoting the economic development of federally recognized Indian tribes (and thus their members),” is “rationally related to a legitimate legislative purpose[,]” thus is constitutional. 28 The exclusivity in the 2021 Compact “plainly promote[s] the economic development of the Seminole Tribe.” And the provisions providing such exclusivity are “rationally related to the legitimate legislative purposes laid out in IGRA by “ensur[ing] that the Indian tribe is the primary beneficiary of the gaming operation[.]” 29 Opponents (non-Tribal casinos, sportsbooks, or other entities) raising an equal protection argument at the state level may argue that the state's Compact discriminates by way of favoring the Seminole Tribe in its grant of exclusivity to operate sports betting. Article I, § 2 of the Florida Constitution guarantees equal protection, provides in relevant part that: All natural persons, female and male alike, are equal before the law and have inalienable rights, among which are the right to enjoy and defend life and liberty, to pursue happiness, to be rewarded for industry, and to acquire, possess and protect property. No person shall be deprived of any right because of race, religion, national origin, or physical disability. 30 Non-Tribal entities (e.g., other casinos, sportsbooks, or companies) cannot legally operate sports betting. Opponents of the 2021 Compact, may argue that it discriminates against other market participants in favor of the Seminole Tribe by granting exclusivity to operate sports betting. This argument fails because the Tribe’s exclusivity should survive scrutiny by the Florida courts. Florida courts generally apply a rational basis standard of review to economic regulations or classifications that do not involve a suspect class or fundamental right. Under this
standard, the law is upheld if the state can show that the classification is rationally related to a legitimate governmental purpose. This is the same level of review the federal court in West Flagler applied in determining that the challenge failed as a matter of law because it has been ruled that Tribes can have exclusivity under IGRA Tribal Gaming Compacts. Florida courts should find similarly that the 2021 Compact is rationally related to legitimate state interests, including: regulating gaming in the state, complying with federal law (IGRA), revenue sharing, protecting tribal sovereignty, and promoting tribal economic development. Again, as the D.C. Court of Appeals noted, Courts have historically upheld compacts granting exclusivity to tribes against Equal Protection challenges. Another argument that opponents may make to attack the law as an equal protection violation is that the geographic restrictions (servers on Tribal land) treat them differently without the required rational basis. However, again, precedent reveals that this law should survive rational basis scrutiny because of the legitimate purposes of complying with IGRA and the Tribes ability to conduct gaming in the state in a consistent manner. Additionally, an argument that a heightened level of scrutiny fails as well. As mentioned above, Florida courts generally apply a rational basis standard of review to economic regulations or classifications that do not involve a suspect class or fundamental right. Suspect classes are groups historically subject to discrimination, and laws discriminating against them trigger heightened scrutiny, rather than the default rational basis. Those bringing state law claims such as casino owners, other market participants, and those generally challenging the alleged Amendment 3 violation, are not members in a suspect class that would trigger heightened scrutiny. Conclusion From the arguments presented above, we conclude the 2021 Compact between the Seminole Tribe and Florida does not
26 Id. at 1070. 27 Id 28 Id. at 1070; see Am. Fed'n of Gov't Emps., AFL-CIO v. United States, 330 F.3d 513, 522-23 (D.C. Cir. 2003). 29 25 U.S.C. § 2702(2). 30 Art. 1. Section 2 Fla. Const
PAGE 54
IMGL MAGAZINE | JUNE 2026
Made with FlippingBook flipbook maker