Sports betting goes to high court
If New Jersey wins, genre won’t be exclusive to Nevada anymore
The U.S. Supreme Court has decided to hear a case involving the long-running saga over whether sports betting should be allowed in New Jersey.
That case — which will likely be heard as soon as this fall — could open the door to state racetracks and Atlantic City casinos being able to offer Las Vegas-style gambling on professional and amateur sports events.
A victory in the case also would have national implications, if New Jersey prevails, because it could enable other states to pass legislation offering similar sports betting.
The court announced Tuesday morning that it would hear the case, which pits New Jersey and the gaming industry against the NFL and four other sports organizations.
William Pascrell III, a gaming lobbyist whose interest in the state’s efforts to allow sports betting dates to 2009, described the decision as a huge victory.
“In many ways, I am a bit surprised, having had so many disappointments,” Pascrell said. “But we’ve never gotten this far, so now at least we have a puncher’s chance.”
If the court concludes that the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act — the 25-year-old federal law that severely limits sports gambling with the exception of Nevada — is unconstitutional, any state could legalize sports betting. A handful of state legislatures have had preliminary discussions on that front in case New Jersey does prevail.
Even if the court ruled instead that PASPA is constitutional but that New Jersey’s sports betting law does not run afoul of it, that would give states a blueprint for how to pass their own laws that could withstand legal challenges.
Dennis Drazin, an attorney who runs Monmouth Park for the state’s Thoroughbred horsemen, said he expected the one-hour oral argument to take place this fall and for a decision to come sometime in 2018.
“We have always said that there are important issues of constitutional law, and I am optimistic that the court ultimately will side with us,” Drazin said.
“We are pleased the Supreme Court appears to have responded favorably to our arguments as to why they should hear this important case,” Geoff Freeman, president of the American Gaming Association, said in a statement. “We are hopeful that their engagement will provide further encouragement for Congress to take the steps necessary to create a regulated sports betting marketplace in the United States.”
Freeman estimated that the illegal gambling market in the USA has reached $150 billion annually.
The NFL and the other sports leagues did not immediately respond for a comment.
The federal law in question is unusual in many respects, including outlawing an activity nationwide yet grandfathering in Nevada. Delaware, Oregon and Montana also were granted the option of offering limited sports betting of the sort that those states had previously. Delaware, for instance, now allows NFL fans parlay betting — the results of three or more games are predicted, with payouts of relatively long odds offered if the bettor makes every pick correctly.
The NFL and four other sports organizations sued New Jersey and Gov. Chris Christie in 2012 after voters statewide overwhelmingly passed a state law permitting Las Vegas-style sports betting at the state’s racetracks and casinos.
The leagues have prevailed in court in the ensuing years. Three 3rd Circuit Court panels — by votes of 2-1, 2-1 and 9-3 — each time have sided with the leagues.
The first case hinged on the judges’ finding that the state had sought to regulate and sponsor sports betting in violation of the federal law. The state then passed an amended law that turned over responsibility for sports betting oversight to any racetrack or casino that sought to offer the gambling.
But the second panel found that amounted to “de facto authorization,” and a full panel of judges in an en banc hearing ultimately agreed.
That prompted New Jersey to ask the Supreme Court to take the case.
Interest in the case — which might come down to the state’s rights philosophies of the justices — by the high court was signaled in January when it became the only one out of more than 100 cases to be sent to the U.S. Solicitor General’s office for review.
That office last month found that the court need not take on the case, but the unusual nature of the saga left many sports law experts believing the court would take it on.
The 1992 federal law was sponsored by Bill Bradley, then a New Jersey senator who two decades earlier was a New York Knicks star. Bradley has said that he was offended by the idea of people gambling on his athletic exploits, saying, “I certainly didn’t like the idea of being (treated like) a roulette chip.”
Fort Lauderdale-based attorney Daniel Wallach said the pet- itioner generally has 45 days to file an opening brief, which means New Jersey’s would be due Aug. 10. The leagues’ response brief would be due 35 days after New Jersey files its opening merits brief — so Sept. 14, Wallach said.
Oral arguments would likely be scheduled for the fall, he said. “The Supreme Court normally hears oral arguments between October and April, scheduling them into monthly two-week sittings during which the court hears two arguments per day on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday.
“Generally, the court allots one hour of argument time for each case, with each party speaking for 30 minutes.”