Gambling Ruling Not a Winning Ticket in Florida
A U.S. Supreme Court decision viewed as a major win for the gambling industry opened the door to sports betting in states across the country, but Florida…
May 15, 2018 at 01:33 PM
5 minute read
A U.S. Supreme Court decision viewed as a major win for the gambling industry opened the door to sports betting in states across the country, but Florida almost certainly won't be one of them — at least for now.
Monday's decision in Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, a case the state of New Jersey brought as a challenge to a law known as the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act, found that a federal ban on state-sanctioned sports betting is unconstitutional.
As the Supreme Court considered the case, some states filed legislation to authorize lucrative sports betting in anticipation of the federal law being struck down.
But in Florida, two major obstacles — a ballot initiative and the need for a special legislative session — stand in the way of joining states such as Mississippi and Pennsylvania, which have cleared the decks to allow gamblers to bet on professional and collegiate sports teams as soon as the NFL season begins in the fall.
A proposed constitutional amendment on the November ballot will allow Florida voters to decide if they want to control decisions about gambling, something now largely left up to the Legislature. If Amendment 3 passes, voters statewide would have to sign off on future gambling expansions.
Sen. Bill Galvano, the Bradenton Republican who has been a lead negotiator on gambling issues for several years, told The News Service of Florida on Monday the high court ruling won't have an immediate impact on Florida, where sports betting is illegal.
“The ruling does not automatically change the gaming landscape in Florida,” said Galvano, a lawyer who will take over as Senate president after the November elections. “I believe it will create more interest in pursuing some types of sports betting, on behalf of the pari-mutuels as well as the (Seminole) tribe and some independent entities. But all of that is overshadowed by the pending constitutional amendment, which may create tremendous obstacles for any type of sports betting to come into the state.”
Galvano and his House counterpart, Miami Lakes Republican Jose Oliva, last month raised the possibility of a special session to address perpetually elusive gambling issues but abandoned the notion after Gov. Rick Scott secured a yearlong gambling deal with the Seminole Tribe. The agreement is focused on the tribe's promise to continue making payments to the state in exchange for “exclusivity” over “banked” card games, such as blackjack.
A special session in reaction to Monday's court decision is “very unlikely,” Galvano said.
Florida's gambling operators could lose out on big bucks if the state doesn't get into the sports-betting game.
“The economic impact of allowing sports betting cannot be understated: Legal sports betting in Las Vegas takes in over $5 billion each year, and most estimates put the value of illegal sports betting in the United States at up to $100 billion,” Amy Howe wrote on the SCOTUSblog website, which closely covers Supreme Court cases, after Monday's decision.
Sports gambling is “a benefit for anybody with a tourist-based economy,” Marc Dunbar, an attorney who represents the gambling industry and who teaches gambling law at Florida State University, told the News Service.
“Florida's going to miss out. Mississippi is going to implement it, and it's going to benefit the Biloxi casinos on the coast. Unfortunately, our hoteliers and our resorts and casinos won't be able to benefit from that,” he said.
The proposed constitutional amendment would make it harder for Floridians to have sports gambling, said Dunbar, a Tallahassee-based partner with the law firm Jones Walker.
“This would probably be another reason why folks should vote against Amendment 3. If you want to have sports gambling in Florida, you probably want to vote no on Amendment 3,” he said.
But John Sowinski, the chairman of Voters in Charge, a political committee behind the amendment, called the court ruling another reason to support the proposed constitutional amendment because the measure would give voters a say in gambling activities.
“A lot of people in Florida would be relieved to know that, if we're going to have sports gambling in this state, it's going to happen by design of Florida voters, not by Tallahassee politicians and gambling lobbyists,” he said.
If the amendment doesn't pass, sports betting will become an integral component of the Legislature's discussions about thorny gambling issues, which some have likened to a three-dimensional game of chess even without the latest gambling twist.
“I'm just letting things play out. We'll see what happens in November,” Galvano said.
Dara Kam reports for the News Service of Florida.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllSpecial Counsel Jack Smith Prepares Final Report as Trump Opposes Its Release
4 minute readGraffiti Showdown: Miami Clashes Over Demolition Site Cleanup Before New Year’s
These Law Firm Leaders Are Optimistic About 2025, Citing Deal Pipeline, International Business
6 minute readTrending Stories
- 1'David and Goliath' Dispute Between Software Developers Ends in $24M Settlement
- 2Supreme Court Takes Up the Corporate Transparency Act: Recent Litigation and Potential Next Steps
- 3Brogdon: The Final Nail in Corbin’s Coffin in Premises Cases
- 4What to Know About the New 'Overlapping Directorship' Antitrust Development
- 5'Quiet, Appropriate End:' NY Court of Appeals Formally Removes Erin Gall From Bench
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250