The state of Florida wants a lawsuit aimed at shutting down its online sports betting market dismissed.
The plaintiff, Protect the Constitution, LLC, argues that an expansion of gambling like online sports betting requires voter approval.
The April 2025 complaint continues the saga of legal challenges raised attacking the legitimacy of the gambling compact that grants the Seminole Tribe the exclusive ability to provide online and retail sports betting in the state through Hard Rock Bet.
The 2021 gaming compact vs. Amendment 3
The “2021 Gaming Compact Between the Seminole Tribe of Florida and the State of Florida” is a 30-year agreement that sets forth the Seminole Tribe’s right to operate “covered games” on an exclusive basis on tribal lands, subject to certain limitations and exceptions provided in the compact. “Covered games” means any of the following:
- Slot Machines
- Raffles and Drawings
- Table Games
- Fantasy Sports Contests
- Sports Betting
- Any new game authorized by Florida law for any person for any purpose
The complaint alleges that the 2021 compact is unconstitutional because it authorizes sports betting throughout Florida without a citizen’s initiative as required by Article X, Section 30 of the Florida Constitution, more commonly referred to as Amendment 3.
Florida Constitution provides citizens exclusive right to authorize casino gambling
Fla. Const., Art. X, §30(a) states:
“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.”
The foregoing prohibits the Florida state legislature from authorizing casino gambling through statute or referring a constitutional amendment to the ballot.
However, subsection (c) states, “nothing herein shall be construed to limit the ability of the state or Native American tribes to negotiate gaming compacts pursuant to the Federal Indian Gaming Regulatory Act for the conduct of casino gambling on tribal lands.”
‘Sports betting’ does not equal ‘casino gambling’
Protect the Constitution seeks declaratory judgment that the 2021 compact is unconstitutional because it legalizes sports betting off-tribal land without approval via the citizens’ initiative process. Specifically, because online sports betting allows users to place bets from locations all over the state, Protect the Constitution’s constitutional challenge relies on the bases that such wagers are not exclusively occurring within the tribe’s jurisdiction.
In response, Florida’s motion states that the complaint should be dismissed for a number of reasons, including Protect the Constitution’s failure to state claim “because the Legislature lawfully implemented the online-sports-betting portions of the compact,” and that such provisions do not require enforcement of the citizen-initiative requirement “because sports betting is not ‘casino gambling’ within the meaning of Section 30.”
The function of a motion to dismiss is to test the legal sufficiency of a complaint. When reviewing the motion, the court is required to accept the complaint’s allegations as true and all reasonable inferences therefrom must be construed in favor of the nonmoving party. However, conclusory allegations (i.e. statements unsupported by fact) will not accepted and all reasonable doubts regarding a statute’s validity are to be resolved in favor of constitutionality.
Furthermore, in determining the meaning of a statute, courts must follow the “supremacy-of-text principle,” which requires that words or phrases in a statute be construed in accordance with their common and ordinary meaning.
The complaint alleges that the “ordinary public meaning of casino gambling includes sports betting” and that the purpose of passing Amendment 3 was to place the right to decide whether and how to authorize sports betting within the power of Florida’s citizens.
Definition of casino gambling
The test for dismissal states that a complaint should be dismissed for failure to state a claim when it is determined that the plaintiff is unable to prove any set of facts to support his or her claim as a matter of law. Florida argues that, as a matter of law, “sports betting” does not fall within the state’s definition of “casino gambling.”
Art. X, §30(b) defines “casino gambling” as follows:
“any of the types of games typically found in casinos and that are within the definition of Class III gaming in the Federal Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, 25 U.S.C. ss. 2701 et seq. (“IGRA”), and in 25 C.F.R. s. 502.4, upon adoption of this amendment, and any that are added to such definition of Class III gaming in the future. This includes, but is not limited to, any house banking game, including but not limited to card games such as baccarat, chemin de fer, blackjack (21), and pai gow (if played as house banking games); any player-banked game that simulates a house banking game, such as California black jack; casino games such as roulette, craps, and keno; any slot machines as defined in 15 U.S.C. s. 1171(a)(1); and any other game not authorized by Article X, section 15, whether or not defined as a slot machine, in which outcomes are determined by random number generator or are similarly assigned randomly, such as instant or historical racing. As used herein, “casino gambling” includes any electronic gambling devices, simulated gambling devices, video lottery devices, internet sweepstakes devices, and any other form of electronic or electromechanical facsimiles of any game of chance, slot machine, or casino-style game, regardless of how such devices are defined under IGRA.”
In its motion to dismiss, Florida alleges online sports betting is not a type of game “typically found” in casinos – and, therefore, plaintiff’s claim of unconstitutionality is unsupported by fact or in law – because sports betting is not a type of game that shares characteristics with any of the casino games listed in Section 30 (i.e. closed-universe games with defined statistical outcomes).
Amendment 3 Exception and Other Arguments
Because the court is initially inclined to accept plaintiff’s allegation as true that the ordinary meaning of casino gambling includes sports betting, Florida’s argument hinges on whether the court agrees – as a matter of law – that sports betting is not “typically found” in casinos. This may not be an inference the court is willing to decide in Florida’s favor.
As such, Florida additionally argues that even if sports betting were to fall under the definition of casino gambling, online sports betting may still be offered in accordance with the 2021 Gaming Compact because Section 30 specifically provides that it shall not limit the ability of the state or tribes to negotiate gaming compacts in accordance with the IGRA.
Yet, in the complaint, plaintiff alleges that the 2021 Gaming Compact was not enacted pursuant to the IGRA but rather pursuant to Florida state law. Unlike the issue of whether casino gambling includes sports betting in the ordinary sense, this allegation is likely to be considered conclusory in nature, thus allowing the court to consider Florida’ arguments against it.
Florida’s motion to dismiss additionally includes the following arguments:
- The 2021 Gaming Compact states “wagers on Sports Betting…made by players physically located within the State using a mobile or other electronic device shall be deemed to take place exclusively where received at the location of the servers or other devices used to conduct such wagering activity at a Facility on Indian Lands.” Therefore, even if a user were to place a mobile wager off-tribal land, the 2021 Gaming Compact establishes that such transaction is actually occurring exclusively on tribal lands, defeating the basis of plaintiff’s complaint.
- Protect the Constitution lacks standing to raise its constitutional challenge as it has no business connection to Florida and is unable to claim harm in the state for itself or on behalf of its unidentified members
- Protect the Constitution has failed to join the Seminole Tribe as an indispensable party, and is unable to do so because the tribe has not waived sovereign immunity.
These “threshold” arguments are provided for the purpose of dismissing plaintiff’s complaint without having to reach the merits of its case.
