Jim Rosica
A federal judge has rejected the state’s request to reconsider his ruling allowing the Seminole Tribe of Florida to keep blackjack at its casinos.
In a two-page order, Senior U.S. District Judge Robert Hinkle said the “original opinion correctly analyzes the issues.”
Hinkle had ruled that regulators working under Gov. Rick Scott allowed dog and horse tracks to offer card games that mimicked ones that were supposed to be exclusive to tribe-owned casinos for a five-year period.
The judge ruled that the Tribe could keep its blackjack tables till 2030. The state wanted Hinkle to instead order the tribe to remove the games.
The Tribe had said Hinkle properly found that those games, known as designated player games, “are ‘banked card games’ (like blackjack) based upon reasonable interpretations” of federal Indian gambling law, state law and testimony at trial, the memo says.
Hinkle has not yet ruled on a separate request by lawyers for a race track in Gretna to intervene in the case.
Attorneys David Romanik and Marc Dunbar have asked Hinkle to remove the part of his ruling they say could make it a “crime” for the track’s cardroom to continue offering certain card games. Romanik and Dunbar are part-owners of Gretna Racing.
The track has a case pending before the state Supreme Court on whether to expand slot machines in the state. Voters in Gadsden County, where the track is located, and five other counties passed local referendums to approve slots.
The Associated Press contributed to this post, reprinted with permission.
2 comments
MICHAEL LAFROSCIA
December 21, 2016 at 10:39 am
“Attorneys David Romanik and Marc Dunbar have asked Hinkle to remove the part of his ruling they say could make it a “crime” for the track’s cardroom to continue offering certain card games. Romanik and Dunbar are part-owners of Gretna Racing.”
If it is a crime to have these games and conduct these games then they should take them out of their facility. Asking for the law to change to protect them from the law is insane. It is the equivalent of someone holding up a convenience store then asking the Judge to remove the criminal charge of the statute which would hold him/her responsible for the crime…
If the Judge does remove the critical part of the statute that holds one responsible then everyone would be operating those games in bars, stores, homes without prosecution.
Horace Hall Jr
December 23, 2016 at 9:27 am
So basically the judge is saying that the contract is not worded properly, should it make the whole 2010 contract Null and Void?
Comments are closed.