One of the main topics of promoting Florida’s new betting contract, which gives the Florida Seminole tribe full control over all legal sports betting in the state (including all bets placed on authorized mobile devices and mutual betting facilities), is that it would provide a “safe harbor” contrary to any constitutional challenge to sports betting under Florida Amendment 3 , but it is based on a false premise: that the legalization of outdoor sports betting on tribal lands would violate the Prohibition of Amendment 3 opposed to the “casino game”. The concern – fueled in various media through the proponents of Amendment 3 – has led the state down a more legally damaging path: approving a pact that circumvents the federal requirement that all “gambling activity” take position only “on Indian soil. “
By reviewing the potential constitutional challenge (even if it is greatly exaggerated), the state can create an even more serious challenge with broader consequences, namely the likelihood that a federal court will reject parts of the pact for breach of the pact. Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (“IGRA”), thus activating the pact divisibility clause that will ensure a tribal monopoly on all in-person sports betting, while eliminating ALL mobile bets on tribal lands and ALL mutual participations in sports betting. it is not just a hypothesis, it is the most likely end result given the design of the pact and the precedent that exists under federal law. If this situation does not undermine the general intention of the pact, then I do not know what it is doing. That is the value that the state of Florida, and the mutual betting industry, will pay for state negotiators to myopianly review a non-existent threat of a safer crisis under the T LIG.
As I have written many times, Amendment 3 simply does not apply to sportsArray However, the message around this new pact is that channeling sports through a pact between tribal states, and thus pushing the barriers of federal law, is a legal necessity due to Amendment 3. I’m here to tell you, for the third time, that Amendment 3 doesn’t apply to sportsArray
The two parts of the “casino game” are expressed in the conjunctiva.
As expressly explained in Amendment 3, “casino gambling” means “any of the types of games discovered in casinos AND falling within the definition of Class III games in the Federal Gambling Regulation Act of India, 25 USC (IGRA”) 25 CFR 502. 4, when this amendment is approved, and anything added to this definition of elegance game III in the future (emphasis added).
It is vital to note that this definition check is expressed in a conjunctive manner. A fundamental rule of interpretation identified through the Florida courts is that when the word “and” connective is inserted between two situations in a statutory or constitutional provision, it means that any of the situations will have to be applied. This precept is called the “connective/disjunctive” frame gun.
Therefore, the only appropriate way to interpret the first sentence of the definition, and the only one that conforms to the fundamental principles of constitutional interpretation, is that the definition of “casino games” has two distinct elements. it has to be the kind of game that “sometimes is discovered in casinos” (measured on the date of Amendment 3, November 6, 2018). Second, the game in question must fall within the “Class III” game definition under the IGRA.
Sports betting is not “generally found” at casinos on November 6, 2018
According to the knowledge provided through the American Gaming Association, there were 40 US states. But it’s not the first time They had legal casino games (including advertising and tribal casinos) as of November 6, 2018 Of those 40 states, only six (Nevada, Delaware, New Jersey, Mississippi, West Virginia, and New Mexico) had casinos that included sports betting as a convenience to customers. In other words, in only 15% of eligible states (i. e. those with legal casinos), it can be said that sports betting “found “in a casino. In other words, not “typical. “
To take a closer look at this, there were more than 500 Native American casinos in the United States as of November 6, 2018, but 3 tribal casinos: the Avi Resort
Keywords are usually found. ” The word “generally”, “generally”, “generally”, “naturally”, “normally”, “ordinarily” or “generally”, according to the online dictionary Merriam-Webster.
According to this simple language definition, which would probably be used through a Florida court if the scope of Amendment 3 were ever questioned, it cannot be crediblely said that sports betting is the type of game “generally found” in casinos, as long as a small percentage of US casinos are in the middle of the world. U. S. offering it as of November 6, 2018.
In fact, it would even require a trial, it’s also clear.
Substantial differences between sports and casino games
Beyond the fact that sports betting was not regularly in casinos on November 6, 2018, it is also a completely different type of game. There are several basic distinctions between sports betting and casino games. First, the “position” of the underlying competitions distinguishes in sports betting, sports competitions or sporting occasions in which bets are placed regularly and placed beyond the 4 walls of the casino. On the other hand, casino games (such as bank card games, cube games and slot machines) are played – and their effects are decided – within the 4 walls of a casino.
A basic difference between casino games and sports betting is the essential nature of the underlying activity. Casino-type games (such as those included in the definition of “casino games” in Amendment 3) are classified as “gambling”. under the laws of the maximum states (including Florida law) because the detail of the possibility (or possibility) predominates in jurisdiction. Courts have identified “casino-style” games such as blackjack, dice, roulette, baccarat and slot machines as gambling. it is so entrenched in the law that an appeals court in California has even formally realized that casino-style gambling, such as those in Nevada casinos, “consists mainly of ‘gambling’ to the extent that the law refers, that is, games that by definition are competitions where the possibility trumps skill.
On the other hand, betting on sports occasions is widely seen as a skill contest. As the New York Attorney General has said, sports betting reaches “substantial” (not “light”) jurisdiction, “adding” the exercise of a bettor’s trial. to look at the winners or losers of those contests, and perceive [outside] that the point is spreading. “
Similarly, the West Virginia Attorney General concluded that “the skill point involved in sports betting places this form of outdoor play on the parameters of a lottery,” adding that “those who bet on sports sometimes take into account background, which has the merit ground, and a measure of other points that would possibly influence the final results of the event. In addition, the Attorney General added, “Statistics and other documents related to sporting events are available to those who wish to examine them and then place a bet in the form of an explanation of why and judgment. “Based on this data,” [e] the betting user uses his wisdom of sporting activity to increase his chances of winning. “The use of such wisdom, the attorney general said, “is the use of skills. “
The dichotomy of “competition for chance” is reflected in the illustrative examples of “casino gambling” provided in the text of Amendment 3. All those examples (add baccarat, blackjack, roulette, dice, keno and slot machines) are games par excellence. played completely in a casino. On the other hand, gambling activities excluded from the definition of “casino games” in Amendment 3 – “mutual bets on horse racing, dog racing and jai alai exhibits” – are widely identified as skill competencies. And, like sports betting, the underlying functionality related to mutual betting on horse racing, greyhound racing and jai alai exhibitions takes position, and the effects are decided, completely outside the doors of a casino environment.
Under the precept of legal interpretation known as ejusdem generis (Latin for “of the same genre”), general expressions such as “including, but not limited to” that precede an express list of included pieces, will not be interpreted in their broader context apply only to things of the same general genre or elegance as those discussed in particular in the example list.
In applying this interpretative levy, the overlooked activity of sports betting is obviously of a “different type or class” of casino-oriented natural gambling indexed in the definition of Amendment 3 of “casino games”. unusual with other “skill-based” betting activities, such as mutual betting on horse racing, dog racing and jai alai, which occur outdoors around a casino and are expressly excluded from the definition of “casino gambling” in Amendment 3.
Federal law also treats sports and gambling in casinos as separate and distinct categories of gambling.
Federal law also differentiates sports betting from casino games. For example, federal regulations governing gambling on Indian lands, a component of the Indian Gambling Regulatory Act (“IGRA”), treat sports betting as a separate form of “Class III” gambling, mentioning it in a separate subparagraph from home bank card games, casino games (such as roulette , dice and keno) and slot machines. In addition, federal cable law, which sometimes prohibits interstate betting, only applies to bets or bets placed on sports occasions and not on other forms of gambling, such as casino gambling. Similarly, the federal excise tax on bets on bets placed on sports occasions, but casino-type games (including slot machines, bank card games, bucket games, and roulette) are on a tax-exempt account.
The federal government’s gambling studies also distinguish between sports betting and casino games. For example, the final 1999 report of the National Gambling Impact Study Commission, which was created through Congress to “conduct a thorough examination of the facts and laws of the social and economic implications of gambling in the United States”, “described the gaming industry as “relatively discrete segments”, specifying “casinos (commercial and tribal) “and” sports betting “as distinct categories of gambling.
A proposal submitted in 2016 included in particular sports betting.
The inability of Amendment 3 to explicitly include sports betting in the definition of “casino games” will have to vigorously oppose a similar proposal submitted at about the same time and designed to give more electorate to the game.
In March 2016, former Florida representative José Díaz (D. Miami), then chairman of the House Regulatory Affairs Committee, filed Joint Resolution 7113 (also known as PCB RAB 16-03), which proposed an amendment to the Florida Constitution that will require that “any expansion of the game” be legal through a proposed constitutional amendment through a citizen initiative petition and then approved by Florida voters.
It was strangely similar to Amendment 3, in two critical respects.
HJR 7113 is broader than Amendment 3, which only considers gambling in casinos.
According to HJR 7113, a request for citizen initiative would be required for any expansion of “gambling”, not just those that can be classified as “casino gambling”.
Define “game” in the broadest sense of all Elegance III games.
And here’s the chance to make money. Unlike Amendment 3 – which mentions “sports betting” – HJR 7113 in particular explained the “sports betting” between Class III games for which a constitutional amendment would be required. He said the term “game” refers to “one of the types of games that fall within the definition of game of elegance III . . . , including, although limited, ArrayArrayArraySports betting”.
HJR 7113 is of an outlier. In Arkansas, for example, the electorate passed a constitutional amendment in 2018 to allow “casino games” in 4 casinos.
As a component of arkansas’ electoral measure, the definition of “casino games” in the component included “accepting bets on sporting events”.
It would not have been extraordinarily confusing for Proponents of Amendment 3 to include sports in the definition of “casino games” (similar to the previous two measures), especially when they have already bothered to refer to everyone else. as a voting measure.
This practically puts an end to the debate over whether Amnification No. 3 (now Section X, Section 30 of the Florida Constitution) prohibits legislative authorization of sports betting.
If the proponents of Amendment 3 intended to include sports within the scope of the constitutional amendment, they may have simply bothered to mention it somewhere in the text, as they did with any other form of Class III play.
The fact that they haven’t, especially given the unsusable point of specificity and precision they gave to the entire Bureaucracy of Class III games, says it all.
I am qualified through the Board of Directors in Appeals Practice of the Florida Bar Association, and I am a co-founder of the University of New Hampshire School of Sports Law.
I am qualified through the Board of Directors in Appeals Practice through the Florida Bar Association and am a co-founder of the Sports Integrity and Betting Program at the University of New Hampshire School of Law.