New Jersey makes case to Supreme Court on sports betting

Dec 28, 2016, 8:45 pm (6 comments)

Sports Betting

NEWARK, N.J. — New Jersey's chances of getting the U.S. Supreme Court to consider its attempt to allow legal sports gambling hinge on how a bedrock constitutional principle is applied.

The state argued in briefs this week that Congress is barred from forcing states to repeal or reinstate their own laws. That's a reference to an issue at the heart of a lawsuit by the NCAA and the four major pro sports leagues, who argue a 1992 federal law barring all but four states from authorizing sports gambling derails New Jersey's effort.

After an initial 2012 law allowing sports gambling in New Jersey was struck down in court, Republican Gov. Chris Christie signed a bill into law in 2014 that repealed prohibitions against sports gambling at casinos and racetracks.

That tactic — repealing prohibitions instead of approving gambling — was seen as a way to get around the federal law by not having sports gambling officially authorized by the state.

But that also met defeat at the hands of a federal judge in New Jersey and a federal appeals court in Philadelphia.

In this week's brief, the state argued the federal government, while able to regulate citizens directly, may not "require the states to govern by Congress' instruction."

Put differently, the appeals court's ruling invalidating New Jersey's 2014 law violates the Constitution by "authorizing a federal court injunction mandating that a State reinstate prohibitions it has chosen to repeal," attorneys representing the state wrote.

The Department of Justice, joining the sports leagues, has argued New Jersey's 2014 law effectively authorizes gambling at racetracks and casinos by prohibiting it everywhere else, making it a violation of the 1992 federal law.

The Supreme Court justices are expected to decide by next month whether to hear the case. The high court declined to hear an earlier iteration of the case in 2014.

Currently only Nevada offers betting on individual games; three other states are authorized to offer multi-game parlay pools.

Christie and other New Jersey lawmakers have sought to legalize sports gambling to help prop up the state's struggling casino and horse racing industries. It's estimated tens, or possibly hundreds, of billions of dollars are bet illegally on sports annually in the U.S.

Several other states including Mississippi, West Virginia, Arizona, Louisiana and Wisconsin have joined New Jersey's brief to the Supreme Court.

AP

Comments

music*'s avatarmusic*

Roll EyesConfused I am confused. 

It is in plain English but I still cannot understand this.

sherry usher

Can Anyone tell me how to get in to get in touch with Sureshotpossibilities out of Decqtur, Ga?

Coin Toss's avatarCoin Toss

From the OP;

But that also met defeat at the hands of a federal judge in New Jersey and a federal appeals court in Philadelphia.

This was after the judge had met with two guys named Tony and Guido

Scared

KY Floyd's avatarKY Floyd

"I still cannot understand this"

Maybe because it's kind of bizarre, and the article could explain it better. Most laws prohibit people from doing things, but the 1992 law says that "government entities" can't "authorize by law" most forms of sports gambling, while exempting states that already allowed it. History suggests that federal law can prohibit sports gambling under the commerce clause, but this law more or less says that the prohibition is based on the federal government not allowing states to legalize it. NJ's argument is that the federal government has no authority to dictate what laws a state enacts or repeals, and if they repeal laws that prohibit sports gambling it won't be illegal under NJ law.

Depending on which legal expert you listen to NJ's argument is either a slam dunk (assuming SCOTUS hears the case) or a long shot. The 1992 law prohibits most sports gambling not by an outright federal prohibition, but by treating some states differently than others. Fairly recently SCOTUS cited the equal sovereign power of the states in striking down parts of the voting rights act that required some, but not all, states to get federal approval before changing laws affecting voting. Unless there's a good argument that there's a strong reason to prohibit some states from legalizing gambling while allowing other states to do so it seems obvious that the same reasoning makes the 1992 act unenforceable. OTOH, equal sovereignty of the states isn't in the constitution, but has recently been bootstrapped from the equal footing doctrine which said that all states newly admitted to the union would be admitted on equal footing with the states already in the union.

CARBOB

"OTOH, equal sovereignty of the states isn't in the constitution, but has recently been bootstrapped from the equal footing doctrine which said that all states newly admitted to the union would be admitted on equal footing with the states already in the union."

Not a lawyer, strictly common sense tells me, "the equal footing doctrine which said that all states newly admitted to the union would be admitted on equal footing with the states already in the union." This part right here suggests, they have a very good case. But, remember the Liberal justices don't always use common sense.

cayla921

Quote: Originally posted by sherry usher on Dec 29, 2016

Can Anyone tell me how to get in to get in touch with Sureshotpossibilities out of Decqtur, Ga?

I thought he stopped his service several years ago. He used to meet at the Day's Inn on Wesley Chapel and unfortunately I have lost his phone number.

End of comments
Subscribe to this news story