Florida House of Representatives v. Crist
999 So. 2d 601 (2008)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the doctrine of separation of powers, a state's governor lacks the constitutional authority to unilaterally bind the state to a compact that authorizes conduct expressly prohibited by state criminal law, as such an action constitutes an unconstitutional encroachment on the legislature's exclusive lawmaking power.
Facts:
- The Seminole Indian Tribe of Florida, a federally recognized tribe, is located within the State of Florida.
- For nearly sixteen years, the Seminole Tribe engaged in sporadic and ultimately unsuccessful negotiations with four different Florida governors to establish a Class III gaming compact under the federal Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA).
- Florida state law prohibits 'banked' card games such as blackjack and baccarat, although it permits other forms of Class III gaming like the state lottery and pari-mutuel wagering.
- In 2007, the federal Department of the Interior threatened to issue procedures that would permit the Tribe to conduct certain Class III gaming without state input or revenue sharing if a compact was not executed by a specific deadline; these threatened procedures did not include banked card games.
- On November 14, 2007, the day before the federal deadline, Governor Charles Crist signed a compact with the Seminole Tribe.
- The compact authorized the Tribe to conduct banked card games like blackjack, baccarat, and chemin de fer, which are otherwise illegal throughout Florida.
- In exchange for this gaming exclusivity, the compact required the Tribe to make substantial revenue payments to the State of Florida.
- The Florida Legislature did not grant prior authorization to the Governor to enter into the compact, nor did it ratify the compact after it was signed.
Procedural Posture:
- The Florida House of Representatives and its Speaker, Marco Rubio, filed a petition for a writ of quo warranto directly in the Supreme Court of Florida, the state's highest court.
- The petition challenged the constitutional authority of Governor Charles J. Crist, Jr. to bind the State to a gaming compact with the Seminole Tribe without legislative approval.
- The Supreme Court of Florida exercised its discretion to hear the case and allowed the Seminole Tribe of Florida to join the action as a respondent.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Governor of Florida have the constitutional authority to unilaterally bind the State to a gaming compact with an Indian tribe that authorizes types of gambling prohibited by state law, without legislative approval?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Cantero
No, the Governor does not have the authority to unilaterally bind the state to a compact that violates state law. The compact authorizes banked card games, such as blackjack, which are explicitly prohibited by Florida's criminal statutes. The power to enact or amend laws, especially criminal laws, is a quintessential legislative function reserved exclusively to the Legislature under the Florida Constitution's separation of powers. By executing a compact that creates an exception to state criminal law, the Governor usurped legislative power. The Governor's constitutional authority to 'transact all necessary business' does not extend to altering the state's public policy as expressed in its laws, and the federal Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) does not grant a governor any powers beyond those conferred by the state constitution.
Concurring - Justice Lewis
I concur in the result that the compact is invalid, but disagree with the majority's reasoning about the scope of the Governor's authority. The Governor does possess the authority under the 'necessary business' clause of the Florida Constitution to enter into inter-sovereign compacts, especially where legislative inaction over sixteen years creates a vacuum and threatens the state's interests. However, the Governor exceeded the proper bounds of that authority by agreeing to a compact term—the legalization of banked card games—that specifically conflicts with existing state criminal law. While I believe the Governor has broader negotiating powers than the majority recognizes, those powers do not extend to contractually overriding explicit statutory prohibitions. Additionally, a writ of quo warranto is an inappropriate vehicle for this challenge, as it should question whether an officer has the power to act at all, not the propriety of how that power is exercised; a declaratory judgment action would have been more appropriate.
Analysis:
This decision strongly reinforces Florida's strict separation of powers doctrine by protecting the Legislature's exclusive authority to make and amend law. It establishes a clear precedent that the executive branch's power to negotiate and enter into compacts does not include the authority to contractually override state criminal statutes. This ruling significantly impacts the balance of power in negotiating future tribal-state compacts in Florida, mandating legislative involvement and approval for any compact that alters or creates exceptions to state law. Consequently, future governors must work with the Legislature to authorize any form of gaming not already permitted by statute.
