iThe Florida Supreme Court denied the petition for quo warranto, which sought a declaration that the Governor exceeded his authority when executing the document and enacting the implementing law associated with the current Seminole Compact. However, the Court recognized that the Petitioners sought a declaration from the Court that the Compact and its implementing law were unconstitutional, and for the Court to enjoin the sports betting provisions associated with the Compact.
The Court declined to expand the scope of quo warranto jurisdiction and denied the writ without reaching the Governor's remaining arguments, noting that the proper avenue to challenge the constitutionality of a statute begins in the state trial courts. The Court went on to distinguish this matter from Florida House of Representatives v. Crist, 999 So. 2d 601 (Fla. 2008), a matter where quo warranto was used to challenge a compact. They noted that in Crist, the issue was whether the then-Governor had the authority to bind the state without the authorization of the Legislature. The current challenge differs, as the Legislature ratified the current Seminole Compact. Thus, Petitioners are challenging the substance of the compact rather than the Governor's authority.
As such, the Court recognized that it must deny the petition. To do otherwise would both undermine the structure of article V of the Florida Constitution and improperly expand quo warranto to permit use of the extraordinary writ to review the merits of an action.
Petitioners still have a pending US Supreme Court appeal, challenging the DC Circuit's ruling in favor of the Secretary of the Interior regarding the deemed approval of the Seminole Compact at the federal level.
Framed as it is, the petition presents nothing other than a challenge to the substantive constitutionality of the law ratifying the compact.
