Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Butterworth, 658 F.2d 310 (5th Cir. 1981), was a United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit case that significantly influenced the development of modern Native American gaming law. In Seminole Tribe, the Fifth Circuit ruled that the State of Florida did not have authority to enforce the Florida Bingo Statute on the Seminole Tribe of Florida's reservation, even though Florida is a Public Law 280 state with special rights to extend criminal and limited civil jurisdiction over Indian Country. Because of the decision, the Seminole Tribe was able to build and operate the nation's first tribally-owned high-stakes bingo parlor on their reservation in Florida, even though bingo for profit was illegal under Florida law at the time. Many other tribes later followed the Seminole Tribe's lead by building their own bingo parlors on their reservations, leading many scholars to call the Seminole Tribe's victory in this case the "birth" of modern commercial gambling on reservations.

Case

Facts In the 1970s, the Seminole Tribe contracted with a private limited partnership that agreed to build and operate a large, high-stakes bingo hall on the Tribe's reservation in exchange for a percentage of profits as management fees.Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Butterworth, 491 F. Supp. 1015, 1016 (S.D. Fla. 1980) (hereinafter Seminole Tribe (District Court opinion)), aff'd, Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Butterworth, 658 F.2d 310 (5th Cir. 1981). The hall cost approximately $900,000 to construct,Seminole Tribe (District Court opinion), 491 F. Supp. at 1016. it was one of the nation's first high-stakes bingo parlors,Goldin, supra note 1, at 810-11. and it was the very first tribally-owned high-stakes bingo parlor.Matthew L.M. Fletcher, The Seminole Tribe and the Origins of Indian Gaming, 9 FIU L. Rev. 255 (2014), https://digitalcommons.law.msu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1543&context=facpubs, at 255. The Tribe made this investment in the bingo hall despite the fact that the hall's planned operation would be "clearly in violation" of the Florida Bingo Statute at that time, Fla. Stat. § 849.093(repealed in 1992Fla. Stat. § 849.093. Repealed in 1992 by Laws 1991, c. 91-421, § 3 (eff. June 1, 1992).). The Bingo Statute only permitted certain charitable, religious, community, or other similar organizations to run bingo games, and even those organizations were limited to running games on less than two days per week with only one jackpot of less than $100 given out per day. The Tribe's bingo hall operated six days per week and handed out multiple jackpots a day of much higher than $100 value.Seminole Tribe (District Court opinion), 491 F. Supp. at 1017.

By 1979, construction on the bingo hall was completed. Shortly before the scheduled opening of the bingo hall, however, Robert Butterworth, the sheriff of Broward County, Florida, informed the Tribe he would make arrests for any violations of the Florida Bingo Statute on the reservation.Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Butterworth, 658 F.2d 310, 311 (5th Cir. 1981) (hereinafter Seminole Tribe (5th Cir. opinion)), cert. denied, Butterworth v. Seminole Tribe of Florida, 455 U.S. 1020 (1982). In response, the Seminole Tribe filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, seeking a declaratory judgment and injunctive relief against Sheriff Butterworth.Seminole Tribe (5th Cir. opinion), 658 F.2d at 311.

Issue and Arguments The main issue in the case was whether the State of Florida, as a Public Law 280 state with special rights to exercise limited civil jurisdiction in Indian Country, had the authority to enforce the Florida Bingo Statute on the Seminole Tribe's reservation.

The Sheriff and the State of Florida, which participated in the lawsuit as amicus curiae, argued that the State of Florida had jurisdiction to enforce the Florida Bingo Statute on the Seminole Tribe's reservation.Seminole Tribe (5th Cir. opinion), 658 F.2d at 311-12, 31, 314. Normally, a state lacks jurisdiction over activity on Indian reservations unless the federal government explicitly grants the state that authority.Seminole Tribe (5th Cir. opinion), 658 F.2d at 312. However, a federal law called Public Law 280 granted certain states – including Florida – the right to exercise criminal and limited civil jurisdiction over Indian Country.Pub. L. No. 83-280, 67 Stat. 588 (1953) (codified as amended at 18 U.S.C. § 1162, 25 U.S.C. §§ 1321-25, and 28 U.S.C. § 1360); see Seminole Tribe (5th Cir. opinion), 658 F.2d 312-13 (summarizing the impact of Public Law 280 on state jurisdiction over Indian reservation activity). Thus, Florida argued that because it is a Public Law 280 state, it possesses the authority to enforce the Florida Bingo Statute on the Seminole Tribe's reservation.

Meanwhile, the Seminole Tribe argued that the Sheriff and the State of Florida did not have the power to enforce the Florida Bingo Statute on the reservation. The Tribe argued that the Supreme Court case Bryan v. Itasca County indicates that, although Public Law 280 states have limited civil jurisdiction in Indian Country, they do not have "general regulatory powers."Bryan v. Itasca County, 426 U.S. 373, 383 (1976) ("[I]f Congress in enacting Pub. L. 280 had intended to confer upon the States general civil regulatory powers . . . it would have expressly said so."). Because the Florida Bingo Statute simply set limits on when, where, and how bingo games could be run and played rather than outright prohibiting bingo games, the Tribe argued that the Statute was regulatory rather than prohibitory in nature, meaning the Sheriff could not enforce it on the Tribe's reservation under Bryan.Seminole Tribe (5th Cir. opinion), 658 F.2d at 313-14.

District Court Opinion The District Court for the Southern District of Florida agreed with the Seminole Tribe, granting first a preliminary injunction and then summary judgment for the Tribe on the grounds that the Florida Bingo Statute was regulatory in nature and thus could not be enforced against the Tribe according to Bryan.Seminole Tribe (District Court opinion), 491 F. Supp. at 1017, 1019-20. The lower court enjoined the Sheriff from enforcing the statute, allowing the Seminole Tribe's bingo hall to open in December 1979.Seminole Tribe (District Court opinion), 491 F. Supp. at 1016 n. 2.

Fifth Circuit Opinion The Sheriff and the State of Florida appealed the District Court's decision to the Fifth Circuit, resulting in the opinion that is the subject of this Article. In this opinion, authored by Judge Lewis R. Morgan and joined by Judge Phyllis A. Kravitch, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the lower court's decision, finding for the Seminole Tribe on the same grounds.Seminole Tribe (5th Cir. opinion), 658 F.2d at 312 ("[A]greeing with the lower court, we affirm its decision.").

The Fifth Circuit agreed with the lower court's interpretation and application of the Supreme Court's Bryan decision, explaining that in this case and others, the issue under Bryan is "whether the statute in question represents an exercise of the state's regulatory or prohibitory authority."Seminole Tribe (5th Cir. opinion), 658 F.2d at 313 (quoting Bryan, 426 U.S. at 390). According to the Fifth Circuit, a key consideration in this analysis is "whether the operation of bingo games is prohibited as against the public policy of the state or merely regulated by the state."Seminole Tribe (5th Cir. opinion), 658 F.2d at 313. In this case, because the Florida Bingo Statute dictated that certain kinds of bingo events played for charitable, community, religious, or other similar purposes should still be permitted in the state, the Fifth Circuit concluded that the State of Florida must not consider the game of bingo "against the public policy of the state of Florida."Seminole Tribe (5th Cir. opinion), 658 F.2d at 314. Instead, Florida's aim with regards to bingo appeared to be preventing abuses by imposing "certain limitations." In other words, Florida sought to regulate bingo to prevent it from becoming a money-making business.Seminole Tribe (5th Cir. opinion), 658 F.2d at 314-15. Thus, because the Bingo Statute did not prohibit bingo outright as against the public policy of Florida, the Fifth Circuit held that the Florida Bingo Statute was merely regulatory in nature even though it included potential penal sanctions for violation of the statute. As a result, the Fifth Circuit held the Florida Bingo Statute could not be enforced by the Sheriff on the Seminole Tribe's reservation.

Finally, the Fifth Circuit also clarified that the Florida Bingo Statute could not be enforced against either Indians or non-Indians on the reservation.Seminole Tribe (5th Cir. opinion), 658 F.2d at 316-17. Although the Sheriff and the State of Florida argued that they should at least be permitted to apply the Bingo Statute against non-Indians playing bingo on the reservation, the Fifth Circuit held that such enforcement would still qualify as an impermissible infringement on the Tribe's own power to conduct bingo games without interference from Florida regulation, thereby violating Bryan.Seminole Tribe (5th Cir. opinion), 658 F.2d at 316.

Fifth Circuit Dissent Judge Paul Hitch Roney dissented from the majority's opinion in Seminole Tribe, arguing instead that Florida's Bingo Statute was clearly prohibitory in nature with regards to bingo played for commercial profit.Seminole Tribe (5th Cir. opinion), 658 F.2d at 317 (Roney, J., dissenting). In fact, Judge Roney emphasized that the Seminole Tribe bingo parlor's great success was largely due to the universal prohibition of such bingo throughout the rest of the state. Finally, because the Seminole Tribe failed to show that the effects of the bingo reservation were confined to the reservation, Judge Roney concluded that Florida had just as strong a reason for prohibiting such bingo playing on the reservation as off the reservation. Thus, Judge Roney stated he would reverse the District Court's decision instead of affirm.

Significance

Influence on the Development of Indian Gaming Law Scholars often point to the Seminole Tribe's victory in this case as the birth of modern commercial Indian gaming.Nicholas S. Goldin, Note, Casting a New Light on Tribal Casino Gaming: Why Congress Should Curtail the Scope of High Stakes Indian Gaming, 84 Cornell L. Rev. 798, 810-11(1999).John C. Kuzenski, The Paving Principle of Good Intentions? Calls for Reform of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act and the Private Game Theory Equilibrium Opposing Them, 30 N.C. Cent. L. Rev. 168, 170-71 (2008). The Seminole Tribe was the first tribe to open a bingo hall on its reservation, and this case was the first to deal with a Public Law 280 state's efforts to put a stop to such gaming.Chris J. Thompson, Comment, Internet Gambling: A Road to Strengthening Tribal Self-Government and Increasing Tribal Self-Sufficiency While Protecting American Consumers, 37 Am. Indian L. Rev. 229, 232 (2013). Thus, the Seminole Tribe's victory in this case was significant not only to them, but to many other tribes hoping to use high-stakes bingo parlors as a source of revenue and a means of attracting companies and jobs to the reservation.William C. Sturtevant & Jessica R. Cattelino, Florida Seminole and Miccosukee, http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/anthro/faculty/jcattelino/FloridaSeminoleandMiccosukee.pdf, at 446.Goldin, supra note 1, at 812.Willard Steele, Seminoles Today, Seminole Tribe of Florida, https://www.semtribe.com/history/SeminolesToday.aspx ("The success of Seminole gaming against legal challenges opened the door for dozens of other American Indian tribes to follow suit."). The case signaled that tribes may be able to expand even a narrow exception in a state's gambling law "into a legal loophole for high-stakes, profit-generating" gambling on their reservations.