A Leon County circuit judge has rejected a lawsuit alleging that a state deal allowing the Seminole Tribe of Florida to offer online sports betting violated a 2018 constitutional amendment aimed at limiting casino gambling.

Judge Jonathan Sjostrom, in a decision issued Friday, said the plaintiff in the case, Protect the Constitution LLC, did not show it had legal standing to pursue the challenge. While he dismissed the lawsuit, Sjostrom gave Protect the Constitution until Nov. 21 to file a possible revised version.

The lawsuit identified Protect the Constitution as a Delaware company and said each of its members "offers products in the state of Florida and has suffered harm, including reduced revenue, as a result of the legislation purporting to authorize 'casino gambling' throughout the state." The lawsuit did not name Protect the Constitution's members.

In granting a motion by the state to dismiss the case, Sjostrom wrote that because the lawsuit "fails to provide meaningful information regarding the identity, activities, location, business and business methods of its constituent members, it fails to allege facts to demonstrate standing."

Sjostrom did not rule on the underlying constitutional issues raised by Protect the Constitution.

The 2018 constitutional amendment said it "ensures that Florida voters shall have the exclusive right to decide whether to authorize casino gambling" in the state. It required a vote through a citizens' initiative "for casino gambling to be authorized under Florida law."

A deal between DeSantis and the Seminole tribe did not receive voter approval, lawsuit says

The lawsuit, filed in April, centers on a deal that Gov. Ron DeSantis reached with the tribe in 2021. The deal, which was ratified by the Legislature, allowed the tribe to accept mobile sports bets placed anywhere in the state, with the wagers run through servers on tribal land. Such gambling started in late 2023.

Protect the Constitution has contended that the deal, known as a compact, violated the constitutional amendment because it did not get voter approval. A key issue, however, has been the sports bets running through Seminole Tribe servers, as the constitutional amendment included an exception for gambling that takes place on tribal lands.

The amendment said "nothing herein shall be construed to limit the ability of the state or Native American tribes to negotiate gaming compacts pursuant to the Federal Indian Gaming Regulatory Act for the conduct of casino gambling on tribal lands, or to affect any existing gambling on tribal lands pursuant to compacts executed by the state and Native American tribes pursuant to IGRA." The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, or IGRA, plays a key role in tribal gambling issues across the country.

But Protect the Constitution has argued that doesn't make the sports-betting deal constitutional.

"When the voters of Florida decided to add (the gambling amendment) to the Constitution, they understood that it would give them the sole right to authorize sports betting," Protect the Constitution said in an Oct. 20 court document. "Today, by legislative fiat, betting on sporting events occurs across the state, all without the people's authorization. That is unconstitutional."

The deal, which also included such things as allowing the tribe to offer craps and roulette games at its casinos, called for the state to receive a minimum of $2.5 billion over the first five years and possibly billions of dollars more throughout the pact.

The lawsuit named as defendants the state, the Florida Gaming Control Commission and the commission's members. It came after the pari-mutuel companies West Flagler Associates and Bonita-Fort Myers Corp. filed unsuccessful challenges in state and federal courts to sports betting.