## Facts

- The Seminole Tribe of Florida and the State of Florida entered a 20-year Class III gaming compact under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA).
- The compact authorized the Tribe to conduct “banked card games” (including blackjack) for an initial five-year period and granted exclusivity in exchange for revenue-sharing payments exceeding $1 billion.
- The compact provided that if Florida permitted any non-tribal person to conduct banked card games, the Tribe’s authorization to conduct those games would continue for the full 20-year term rather than ending after five years.
- Florida regulators allowed pari-mutuel cardrooms to offer “designated-player” games in which a designated player served as the bank, paying winners and collecting from losers.
- The Tribe sued, asserting the designated-player games were banked card games that violated the compact’s exclusivity protections and triggered the compact’s extension of the Tribe’s banked-game authorization.
- After a bench trial, the court issued findings of fact and conclusions of law addressing whether the designated-player games fit the compact and IGRA definition of “banked card games.”

## Issues

1. Whether designated-player games authorized at Florida pari-mutuel cardrooms constitute “banked card games” under IGRA and the parties’ compact.
2. If so, whether Florida’s authorization of those games triggered the compact provision extending the Tribe’s authority to offer banked card games for the full 20-year term.

## Decision

- The court ruled for the Tribe after a bench trial.
- The court held the designated-player games were “banked card games” because they used a bank that paid winners and collected from losers, even if the bank was a player rather than the house.
- The court held Florida’s authorization of those games at non-tribal facilities violated the compact’s exclusivity protections.
- The court concluded the compact’s extension mechanism was triggered, allowing the Tribe to continue offering banked card games for the remainder of the 20-year compact term.

## Legal Principles

- A tribal–state gaming compact under IGRA is interpreted using contract interpretation principles, focusing on the text, context, and ordinary/industry usage of key terms.
- “Banked card games” may include player-banked formats where a player functions as the bank by paying winners and collecting from losers; the presence of a bank, not the identity of the banker, is the defining feature.
- Statutory and contractual examples can inform meaning; inclusion of games that are necessarily player-banked supports reading “banked” to include player-banked structures.
- Where a compact ties exclusivity to conditional consequences, a state’s authorization of the covered activity by non-tribal entities can trigger the compact’s specified remedy, including extension of tribal gaming rights.

## Conclusion

The court determined that Florida’s approval of designated-player games at pari-mutuel cardrooms constituted permitting banked card games by non-tribal entities, breaching the compact’s exclusivity protections and extending the Tribe’s authorization to conduct banked card games through the compact’s full 20-year term.


Seminole Tribe of Fla. v. Florida, 219 F. Supp. 3d 1177 (N.D. Fla. 2016)