573 F.Supp.3d 260
D.D.C.2021Background
- In August 2021 Florida and the Seminole Tribe executed a class III gaming compact that authorized statewide online sports betting, including wagers placed by patrons physically located off tribal lands.
- The Interior Secretary received the compact and took no action within 45 days, producing a default approval; the approval was published in the Federal Register and the Compact took effect.
- West Flagler (brick-and-mortar casino owners) and Monterra (local residents and businesses) sued under the Administrative Procedure Act, arguing primarily that the Compact violates IGRA because it authorizes class III gaming off "Indian lands."
- The Tribe sought limited intervention, arguing it was an indispensable party immune from suit; the Secretary and State defended the Compact.
- The Court found West Flagler had Article III standing based on competitive injury, held the Tribe was not indispensable (Rule 19), concluded the Compact violates IGRA by authorizing off‑land gaming, and vacated the Secretary’s default approval (restoring the prior compact).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Article III standing | Casino will lose revenue to Tribe's statewide online betting | No concrete, non‑speculative injury; survey unreliable | West Flagler has competitive injury and standing |
| Tribe intervention / indispensability | Tribe indispensable; sovereign immunity bars joinder | Secretary and State adequately represent Tribe; no prejudice | Tribe not indispensable; intervention denied as moot |
| IGRA scope: where class III gaming may occur | Compact unlawfully authorizes gaming off Indian lands | Compact "deems" wagers to occur on tribal lands; Florida statute fills gaps; Compact divides regulatory authority | Compact authorizes off‑land gaming; conflicts with IGRA’s Indian‑lands requirement; approval unlawful |
| Remedy | Vacatur of Secretary’s approval requested | (No effective opposition to vacatur) | Secretary’s default approval set aside; prior compact reinstated pending lawful approval of any new compact |
Key Cases Cited
- Michigan v. Bay Mills Indian Community, 572 U.S. 782 (2014) (IGRA limits regulation to gaming on Indian lands)
- Amador County v. Salazar, 640 F.3d 373 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (Secretary must disapprove compacts inconsistent with IGRA; default approvals reviewable)
- CSX Transportation, Inc. v. Alabama Department of Revenue, 562 U.S. 277 (2011) (courts reject statutory interpretations that render statutory limitations inoperative)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (standing requires concrete, particularized, imminent injury)
- Czyzewski v. Jevic Holding Corp., 137 S. Ct. 973 (2017) (loss of even a small amount of money ordinarily constitutes injury)
- Republic of Philippines v. Pimentel, 553 U.S. 851 (2008) (courts may sua sponte consider absence of required parties under Rule 19)
- Kickapoo Tribe of Indians v. Babbitt, 43 F.3d 1491 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (tribal interest makes tribe a required party for Rule 19 analysis)