And approved (or at least not disapproved) by the U.S. Secretary of the Interior. The amount of the payments to the state, coupled with the relatively limited exclusivity granted to the tribe, will factor in whether the Secretary views the revenue-sharing provisions as an appropriate "give and take" in compact negotiations, or as an illegal state tax on tribal gaming. Also relevant will be the fact that the revenue payments are for the state's unrestricted use. At least in the Ninth Circuit, this can weigh toward finding that the payments are indeed a tax (see In re Indian Gaming Related Cases, a 2003 case out of the Ninth Circuit).
Still, it looks good for a valid compact in Florida . . . .
Read the latest in the Miami Herald
