Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida
United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida
219 F. Supp. 3d 1177 (2016)
- Written by Abby Roughton, JD
Facts
The Seminole Tribe of Florida (the tribe) (plaintiff) operated casinos in Florida (the state) (defendant) pursuant to a tribal-state compact under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA). The compact became effective in 2010 with a 20-year term. The compact provided that the tribe could conduct banked card games, defined in accordance with IGRA as including baccarat, chemin de fer, and blackjack, for the first five years of the compact term. When the compact was executed, no other Florida entities could offer banked card games, and the tribe promised the state more than a billion dollars for the right to exclusively provide such games. The compact stated that the five-year limitation period was inapplicable—and the tribe could conduct banked card games for the entire 20-year term—if the state permitted any other person, except for another tribe, to conduct banked card games. In 2015, the tribe sued the state in federal court, asserting that the tribe could conduct banked card games for the 20-year compact term. The tribe claimed that the five-year limitation period no longer applied because the state had allowed pari-mutuel cardrooms to conduct banked card games in which a designated player operated as the bank. The state asserted that player-banked games were not actually banked card games. At a bench trial, the tribe presented expert testimony that in the gaming industry, a banked card game is a game in which a bank pays winners and collects from losers instead of a game in which there is a common pot of money. Under this industry definition, the bank could be the house, a third party, or another player in the game. Of the banked card games specified in IGRA and the compact, blackjack and baccarat are typically house-banked games, whereas chemin de fer is always a player-banked game. The court issued findings of fact and conclusions of law following the bench trial.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Hinkle, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 814,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.