Supreme Court Agrees To Hear NJ Sports Betting Case

This is interesting because federal law strictly prohibits sports betting except in 4 states. All lower court decisions have confirmed that. The Supreme Court has refused to hear any sports betting cases in the past. In this case In January they delayed deciding whether to hear this case because they wanted to hear the opinion of the incoming administration. The acting solicitor general last month urged the court NOT to take the case. But they have decided to do it. Here are some details:

http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2017/06/supreme_court_agrees_to_hear_nj_sports_betting_case.html

The U.S. Supreme Court agreed Tuesday to hear arguments on whether sports betting should be legalized at racetracks and casinos in New Jersey.

The justices, as is custom, gave no reason for agreeing to hear the appeal of a court decision that threw out the state's latest effort to legalize wagering on sports games. The case would be argued during the court term that begins in October.

The court in January had delayed a ruling on the case, saying it first wanted to hear what President Donald Trump had to say on the issue. His acting solicitor general, Jeffrey B. Wall, urged the justices in May not to take the case.

Wall said that New Jersey's efforts to get around the federal ban on sports betting by repealing state laws and allowing such wagering to proceed without regulation "is no different than a positive enactment authorizing such gambling."

Daniel Wallach, a sports gaming expert, said getting the nation's highest court to hear the case was the "No. 1 obstacle blocking New Jersey's path" because the court grants fewer than 2 percent of petitions.

"This is the closest New Jersey has ever been to legalized sports betting," said Wallach, a gaming and sports law attorney with Becker & Poliakoff in Fort Lauderdale, Fla. "This is a sea change in the whole movement surrounding sports betting in the U.S."

Wallach said if the court sides with New Jersey, sports betting could open at racetracks and casinos by next June, in time for the 2018 NFL season.

State officials have sought since 2011 to legalize sports betting at racetracks and Atlantic City's casinos, but the National Collegiate Athletic Association and the four major professional sports leagues -- Major League Baseball, National Football League, National Basketball Association and the National Hockey League -- have sued to stop them, even as some of the leagues have partnered with daily fantasy sports operations.

At issue is a 1992 law that banned sports betting in all but four states, Delaware, Montana, Nevada and Oregon.

New Jersey's latest setback came in August 2016, when the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia ruled in a 10-2 decision that sports betting is "clearly and completely legally prohibited" under federal law.

State Sen. Raymond Lesniak (D-Union), the lawmaker who has led New Jersey's fight, said he now is "very confident" of the state's chances of prevailing.

"I've been knocked down five or six times," said Lesniak, a 40-year legislator who is set to retire from the state Legislmature in January. "You get a little groggy. But I never give up. And I expect to win."


State Sen. Joseph Kyrillos (R-Monmouth), another sponsor of the sports betting legislation, said legalizing such wagering would "spur economic growth and bolster our long beleaguered equine industry."

"These decisions should be made at the state level," Kyrillos added. "That's why this is an important case not only for New Jersey, but for every state in the nation."

The casino industry earlier this month announced a new American Sports Betting Coalition to try to get Congress to repeal the 1992 law and leave it up each individual state to decide whether to allow such sports betting.

In addition, U.S. Reps. Frank LoBiondo (R-2nd Dist.) and Frank Pallone Jr. (D-6th Dist.) have introduced legislation to allow New Jersey to have sports betting.

"The citizens of New Jersey overwhelmingly support legalized sports betting and acted in a referendum to show that support," Pallone said. "Both Congress and the Supreme Court should respect these actions."

LoBiondo called the court action "a long time coming."

"I have long argued that legal sports betting will have a significant and positive impact on South Jersey, bringing tourism and tax revenue to the state and reinvigorating Atlantic City," he said.


The casino industry's trade group also welcomed Tuesday's court action. Geoff Freeman, president and chief executive of the American Gaming Association, which has launched a national campaign to legalize sports betting, said he hoped it would "provide further encouragement for Congress to take the steps to create a regulated sports betting marketplace."

The cases are 16-476, Christie et al v. National Collegiate Athletic Association et al, and 16-477, N.J. Thoroughbred Horsemens Association v. National Collegiate Athletic Association et al. They will be consolidated before the high court.

 

Pure stupidity that all 50 states don't have legalized sports betting bringing in much needed tax revenues at national state and local level. Talk about having your head in the sand this may be the ultimate example as prob half the country would make a sports bet at some point during any given year if legalized. Puritanical bs

 

Background:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professional_and_Amateur_Sports_Protection_Act_of_1992

Apparently the sides are that the sports leagues support(ed) the existing law because previously, they just didn't like betting, and now (presumably), they want to protect Fantasy betting cause they're in bed with them.

The states want the dough and say the feds can't tell 46 states, if they want to allow betting, that they can't do what the other 4 are allowed to. Which makes sense to me, although the law's been upheld previously in lower courts.

 

I think sports betting could put Atlantic City back on the map. I would certainly drive the 3 hours past dozens of casinos from the DC area for big NFL weekends if there were sports books.

 

Not only would it be good for AC, but it would presumably open up some other states where this might happen, such as Illinois

 

I think it would help Tunica as well. And I could see another expansion in Harrah's Cherokee in the future if it was passed too.

 

It seems silly that I can bet on players via DraftKings/FanDuel but I can't bet on teams.

 

I heard part of a discussion about this on the Bloomberg Law radio show this afternoon. it's way more pretzel-y than I thought. I didn't hear enough to make heads or tails out of the underlying legal issues, but it sounds like it's very little about gambling itself and mostly about legal technicalities.

 

I am no lawyer and I didn't even stay at a holiday inn express last night but I think it's more of a states rights issue. How can 4 states have the right to regulate one thing and the other 46 states are strictly prohibited by the feds from doing the same thing. It will be interesting to see where the SC goes on this issue.

 

The only reason that those 4 states are allowed to have it is that they were grandfathered in. I agree this should definitely be a states rights issue. Especially since everyone does it online anyways. States are missing out on a lot of revenue.

 

I agree with you. If the four states can offer sports betting, then all the states should be able to offer sports betting. Period. We can't have some states having privileges over other states.

 

There's been other historical exemptions, such as CARB w/r/t to EPA regulations. This is not the only example of grandfathering being allowed.

 

I'm annoyed by the part where they quoted the courts as saying they were waiting to see what the administration had to say. The Supreme court should weigh the merits of a law and decide if it is unconstitutional. I'm bothered by the blatant indication that they would be taking cues from any other branch of the government. Their sole purpose is to be an independent check and balance to the other branches.

Like others I also question how you can justify making a federal law that makes certain things illegal in one state and not another without some sort of necessity for such disparity like geography or something.

 

I'm sure CET is carefully watching this. They recently installed a race-only (no other sports) book in the Horseshoe in Council Bluffs. This was surprisingly busy last Saturday. I'm sure they would love to open this up to things like football betting!

 

I'd agree with you, but what they did was invite the Solicitor General to make an argument on behalf of the Feds, whatever side the Feds were on. That's not "taking cues."

In any case, the Solicitor General filed a brief arguing NJ had no standing, but the court took the case anyway.

 

I suspect the entire AGA and lots of specialized bookmakers like William Hill are dying for NJ to win this.

 

When Federal Laws on this matter we being written, all states (at that time) were asked if they wanted to allow for betting in their state. 4 already had some sort of local laws in place to allow for some sort of wagers on sports. They verified on what they wanted, loose like NV or light like OR.

The US allowed all states to create their own laws and decide if they wanted Sports betting or not. 46 states, including New Jersey (Oh the irony) voted NOT to allow for sports betting. Then the Federal Law was written. AC could have had sports books just like Vegas, gambling was legal there at the time as well. But the state voted not to.

The delay in getting it heard goes beyond a thumbs up or down for sports betting. It could open the doors for any state to ask to repeal any Federal ban for anything they wish.

Let's say NJ (Who would only give full fledged sports books to AC by their own laws) wins. Now the Supreme Court has just passed precedence and 45 OTHER states legally have the right to now opt in to Sports Betting. New York has it, PA has it, everyone all around New Jersey can have it. Then what?

NJ/Atlantic City had their shot years ago. They would be one of 5 now and they would be fighting to keep other states out. But they blew it.

So it is not about allowing 4 to do something and the other 46 not to. It was all put to a vote, by those 50 states, and the 46 cant just change their minds on a whim when they are broke.

 

Right, that's why I had to amend my remarks after I heard some discussion about it.

 

I fail to see why states can't change their mind about their laws. Times change. People change. Just because Bill Bradley had a bug up his bum about sports betting back in 1992, I don't see why New Jerseyans shouldn't be able to bet on sports in 2017.

 

That's the rub. States CAN change their minds about their laws. NJ actually changed their laws to allow sports wagering in state back in 2014. But the existing Federal Law prohibits them from implementing it. There are probably millions of local and state laws that different from one to the next. They don't need the Feds approval for the vast majority.

By comparison there are roughly 5,000 Federal Criminal laws, and ton more regulations, that are out there. The Federal Government, by design, allows for most states to set their own laws as they see fit, like allowing for standard gambling in a casino. If Illinois, who allows for Riverboat gaming, wanted to change state laws to allow for land based casinos, they can do so without the Fed's approval. In fact, it was a Federal Law that paved the way for all the Native American casinos out there. So it isn't like they have a hard on for gaming.

But certain topics, that reflect upon the greater good of the nation, have either Federal Support (Americans with Disabilities Act, Environmental Laws, Freedom of Information Act ETC) or have the Fed's step in to limit or regulate. Like Guns, Explosives and yes Sports Betting. The bug up Bill Bradley's ass 25 years ago was still tied to the threat of the mob taking over sports wagering once again. And the effect gambling had on kid players (college levels) as well as the intregrity of sports (Pete Rose) So it was regulated on a Federal Level after each state opted in or out.

The argument was that states, with existing sports wagering, had to show how it was regulated currently (at the time). Any state that wanted in had to prove how they would regulate it. Illinois couldn't say at the time "We will just allow for it and figure out how later". They had to show a plan. It couldn't be a broad brush stroke like a "yes" vote. That would keep the mob, and their existing clientele, from being legitimized.

Yes times have changed, and most all casinos are owned by corporations that pay massive taxes. That might very well be why the Supreme Court agreed to hear it. So how did we get to this?

NJ passed their law and the major sports leagues objected. And that began the stalemate and THAT is what stopped it from going into effect.

I just cant see NJ winning. They would pretty much need to toss out the "Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act", which does have a lot of good in it, in order to win. But like I said before, if that gets tossed then EVERY state can allow for sports betting. Then NJ just has more of the same as every other state near by. In 1992 they allowed for 1 extra year for a state to get organized, that was implemented for New Jersey! And they still didnt do it.

Sorry for the rant, but that is why you cant tie up the justice system for every federal law you no longer like in order to suit your needs. Now if 20 states petition for the abolition of the PASPA, and they said it was dated and times changed, that is an entirely different animal and you would be correct. But the values and needs of one state VS 49 is not enough to show times have changed in order to repeal a Federal Act that went into effect just 25 years ago.