The anti-gambling advocacy group “No Casinos” has submitted a request to the Florida Supreme Court to present a late legal argument in support of the legal action aimed at invalidating the gambling agreement between the Seminole Tribe and the state.
The argument asserts that the state-authorized online sports wagering under the agreement contravenes Florida Constitutional Amendment 3, which stipulates that casino gambling cannot be expanded without the consent of a majority of voters in a statewide vote. “No Casinos” was the author of the amendment.
The legal challenge, West Flagler Associates v. Ron DeSantis, examines whether the governor exceeded his authority when he approved the agreement between the state and the Seminole Tribe in 2021. The agreement grants the Seminoles exclusive rights to provide online sports betting through their Hard Rock brand utilizing a hub-and-spoke system.
A legal argument from an individual or organization that is not involved in the lawsuit but offers legal perspectives on the case is known as an amicus curiae brief. “No Casinos” submitted its legal argument after the designated deadline. The deadline for submitting legal arguments in the case was October 5th.
The “No Gambling” coalition missed the cutoff for their legal argument, so they requested a ten-day postponement from the court. The court granted their request.
However, legal experts are uncertain if the court will actually permit “No Gambling” to present their argument.
“I believe it’s improbable they’ll receive an extension,” stated Jeff Ifrah, a legal professional. “Courts typically don’t heed what legislators say about laws.”
“The court will examine Amendment 3 and how it should be interpreted,” he added.
Ron DeSantis’ legal representatives responded to the argument. DeSantis stated he had no issue with the argument itself, but he would only support a postponement if he received one as well.