High Court hears arguments in Seminole compact case

TALLAHASSEE (FBW)—The Florida Supreme Court heard oral arguments Jan. 30 in a high profile legal showdown between the legislature and governor concerning whether Gov. Charlie Crist's recent gambling compact with the Seminole Tribe of Florida is an unconstitutional enactment of legislation without authorization of the Legislature.

The high court heard the arguments only two days after 800 Class III, Las Vegas-style slot machines began functioning at the Seminole Hard Rock Casino in Hollywood, as permitted in the 25-year compact agreed to by the governor last November under which the tribe has paid the state $50 million, and has guaranteed $100 million per year for the first three years and potentially 25 percent of annual revenues in the out years of the compact.

In exchange for the payments to the state, the Seminoles are granted in the compact exclusive rights to other Class III games, including "banked" card games—like black jack and baccarat, although those types of games are currently illegal in the state. The Seminoles' payments to the state would be voided if the Legislature granted banked games outside of the Indian reservations.

Rep. Marco Rubio, R-West Miami, speaker of the Florida House of Representatives, filed a lawsuit on behalf of the House requesting the Florida Supreme Court to void the compact as a violation of the state constitution's separation of powers. The Florida Senate filed a brief siding with the speaker.

The governor has responded that his actions were dictated by a deadline from the secretary of the U.S. Department of the Interior, which has jurisdiction over Indian gaming, requiring the State of Florida to negotiate a compact with the Seminoles to permit Class III games after voters approved a 2004 constitutional amendment to permit voters to allow slot machines in two South Florida counties. The federal Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) requires gambling that is permitted elsewhere in a state must be permitted on Indian lands.

The lively, 55-minute session included sharp questioning of both sides.

John Mills, former speaker of the Florida House, represented Speaker Rubio, while Christopher Kise, represented the governor, and Barry Richard represented the Seminole Tribe of Florida.

"We're here today because of a dramatic and historic change in gambling policy and public policy in the State of Florida that is purported to implement casino gambling on Indian lands," Mills told the high court.

Mills argued that although IGRA requires the governor to negotiate a compact with Indian tribes, the law does not give him authority to bind the state to such an agreement without the authorization of the Legislature.

Kise and Richard argued the Legislature failed to act throughout the negotiations dating back 16 years and four governors and voiding the compact now in light of that inaction would be wrong.

"The petitioners take ... a near limitless view of legislative power," Kise told the justices, arguing that Gov. Crist's compact was merely an interpretation and execution of already settled public policy since voters approved the slots referendum in 2004 permitting Class III games in Broward and Miami-Dade counties.

Noting it was "Super Bowl week," Kise told the high court that the governor simply "called an audible" in negotiating the Seminole compact.

Justices, especially Raoul Cantero, III, and Barbara J. Pariente, seemed skeptical of Kise's arguments that the compact's inclusion of banked card games did not constitute changing state law.

The compact, Cantero said, "goes beyond leveling the playing field and it renders legal in Indian territory what is not legal anywhere else in the state. And that seems to be a clear change in public policy and a change in substantive law."

Kise responded that the governor's compact was an implementation of federal policy, "a matter about which the Legislature has no role."

The justices gave no indication of when they will decide the case, although some seemed to suggest that perhaps they should wait and see if the Legislature acts on the matter when it convenes next month.