West Flagler Associates, Ltd. v. Haaland

_________________
_________________
1 Cite as: 601 U. S. ____ (2023)
Statement of K
AVANAUGH, J.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
No. 23A315
WEST FLAGLER ASSOCIATES, LTD., ET AL. v. DEBRA
HAALAND, SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR,
ET AL.
ON APPLICATION FOR STAY
[October 25, 2023]
The application for stay presented to THE CHIEF JUSTICE
and by him referred to the Court is denied. The order here-
tofore entered by T
HE CHIEF JUSTICE is vacated.
Statement of J
USTICE KAVANAUGH respecting the denial
of the application for stay.
I agree that the stay application should be denied in light
of the D. C. Circuit’s pronouncement that the compact be-
tween Florida and the Seminole Tribe authorizes the Tribe
to conduct only on-reservation gaming operations, and not
off-reservation gaming operations. 71 F. 4th 1059, 1062,
1065–1068 (2023); Response in Opposition to Application
for Stay 7–10, 13–14. If the compact authorized the Tribe
to conduct off-reservation gaming operations, either di-
rectly or by deeming off-reservation gaming operations to
somehow be on-reservation, then the compact would likely
violate the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, as the District
Court explained. 573 F. Supp. 3d 260, 272–274 (DC 2021);
see 25 U. S. C. §§2710(d)(1), (d)(8)(A).
To the extent that a separate Florida statute (as distinct
from the compact) authorizes the Seminole Tribe—and only
the Seminole Tribe—to conduct certain off-reservation
gaming operations in Florida, the state law raises serious
equal protection issues. See Students for Fair Admissions,
Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, 600 U. S.
181, 206 (2023); Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Peña, 515

2 WEST FLAGLER ASSOCIATES, LTD. v. HAALAND
Statement of K
AVANAUGH, J.
U. S. 200, 221–222 (1995). But the state law’s constitution-
ality is not squarely presented in this application, and the
Florida Supreme Court is in any event currently consider-
ing state-law issues related to the Tribe’s potential off-res-
ervation gaming operations.