n June, the U.S. Supreme Court delivered a major victory for tribal online sports betting. The Supreme Court’s refusal to review a case challenging Florida’s Seminole Tribe compact for statewide online sports betting set a significant precedent. This decision has far-reaching implications for tribal gaming rights and the future of sports betting in the U.S. Essentially, the pivotal decision to decline to hear the West Flagler Associates v. Haaland case upholds the 2021 agreement between the Seminole Tribe and Florida, allowing the tribe to maintain its exclusive control over online sports betting in the Sunshine State. The case centered on the interpretation of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA), with West Flagler Associates, the owners and operators of Magic City Casino in Miami, challenging the compact’s legality, arguing that it allowed gaming activities off tribal lands. The lower courts, however, determined that bets placed on mobile devices within the state were considered to occur on tribal lands, where the servers are located. This “hub-and-spoke” model, now endorsed by the Supreme Court’s inaction, opens up new possibilities for tribal gaming expansion across the U.S. Yet, it also raises questions about how it will be adapted and challenged in states with different geographical and tribal land distributions, and potential legal hurdles that tribes may encounter in replicating the Florida compact. To explore the widespread impact of this landmark decision, we’ve gathered insights from two gaming lawyers, Behnam Dayanim and Derril Jordan, who discussed with us the complexities of this ruling and its potential to reshape the landscape of iGaming across the U.S. In your opinion, how significant is the Supreme Court’s decision not to hear West Flagler Associates v. Haaland for the future of tribal gaming in the U.S.? Behnam Dayanim: In states in which sports betting is already legal and operational, the ramifications are likely to be modest, at least in the near term. In most of those states, the existing hierarchy of operators is well-established, the ability for a new entrant to attract substantial market share (whether in sports betting or iGaming) would seem limited. However, in states where mobile sports betting has not yet been legalized, the decision could have a significant impact, both in lessening tribal opposition and in creating markets in which tribes dominate. Derril Jordan: I think it’s pretty significant. My gut feeling is that if they would have granted (a writ of certiorari) it wouldn’t have been to affirm it. So, I think in that regard, it’s very significant. What specific aspects of the Seminole Tribe’s gaming compact with Florida could serve as a model for other states seeking to expand tribal gaming operations? Behnam Dayanim: Florida is not a model that is likely to be widely replicated. In Florida, the Seminoles are the lone federally recognized tribe. In most other states contemplating legalization, that will not be the case. Differing tribal interests and influence likely will lead to different political dynamics and outcomes in other states. Derril Jordan: I think that the Interior Department’s explanation of why sports betting is not illegal and why it’s permissible provides a path to willing states that want to compact with tribes to provide sports betting. Of course, that same formulation is also incorporated into the department’s relatively new regulation (25 C.F.R. Part 293). So, if a state already has sports betting and is willing to compact with tribes and do their legal responsibility, this does provide a roadmap for how to do it. Whether states want to do that or not is another question. How might the “hub-and-spoke” model used in the Florida compact be adapted or challenged in states with different geographical or tribal land distributions? Behnam Dayanim: The Department of the Interior’s (DOI) acceptance of the “hub and spoke” concept points the way to other states similarly deeming wagers to be accepted on tribal lands even when placed by patrons located elsewhere. The legal sufficiency of that model under state law, of course, will turn on state-law principles, but it has been accepted elsewhere – notably, in New Jersey, which requires casino servers to be located in Atlantic City and deems all mobile wagers by New Jerseyans to take place within the city limits. Derril Jordan: As far as adaptation, I think again, the Interior Department’s explanation in the DC circuit and their explanation of the holding of the decision in their brief before the Supreme Court, is a road map. 23 GPWAtimes.org Behnam Dayanim is a partner with Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP in Washington, DC, where he serves as global head of the Digital Commerce & Gaming practice. Behn advises casinos, sportsbooks, media companies, financial institutions, payment providers, and other service providers in connection with gaming matters, including regulatory advice, transactions, and disputes. Derril B. Jordan is a senior Indian law attorney and partner at Patterson Earnhart Real Bird & Wilson LLP. An enrolled member of the Mattaponi Indian Tribe, Derril has over 36 years of experience representing tribes as in-house counsel and in private practice. Derril concentrates his practice on land and jurisdiction issues, strengthening tribal governance, developing tribal enterprises, and improving government-to-government relationships between Indian tribes and the federal government. Meet the Experts:
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy NDIzMTA=