Supreme Court Denies Cert. in New Jersey Sports Betting Case

Supreme Court Denies Cert. in New Jersey Sports Betting Case

July 1, 2014

Supreme Court Denies Cert. in New Jersey Sports Betting Case

By: Ifrah Law

On June 23, the United States Supreme Court denied New Jersey’s petition for a writ of certiorari to hear an appeal from lower court decisions that invalidated its sports wagering law.  This ends a three year fight to bring sports betting to New Jersey’s casinos and racetracks, but NJ State Senator Raymond Lesniak, who has spearheaded efforts to bring sports betting to the state has vowed to continue on.

Last September, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, in a 2-1 vote with a strong dissenting opinion, affirmed the decision of the district court striking down the state’s sports wagering law as conflicting with the federal Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act of 1992 (“PASPA”).  In February of this year, the state of New Jersey filed a petition for a writ of certiorari asking the Supreme Court to hear the case, which today the Court denied.

The case has far reaching implications, well beyond the future of legalized state sponsored sports betting in the United States, but the Court decided the time was not right to hear the case.  In the Supreme Court, the states of West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming filed an amici curiae brief in support of New Jersey’s petition because of the belief that the Third Circuit decision “raises serious federalism concerns” by forcing states to implement federal policy. The states of Georgia, Kansas, Virginia, and West Virginia filed a similar amici brief in the Third Circuit.

This case raised numerous interesting constitutional issues regarding federalism and the federal government’s ability to dictate state policy, something that the Supreme Court has considered recently in other cases.  Last June, in a Voting Rights Act (“VRA”) case, the Supreme Court struck down a provision of the VRA that provided a formula for determining which states are subject to the provisions of the VRA, as unconstitutional.  The dissenting opinion in that case specifically recognized PASPA as a statute that treats states disparately and that its validity may now be in question under the equal sovereignty principles that the Court outlined in its opinion.

This is a temporary setback in the fight to bring legalized state sponsored sports betting to states other than Nevada, but the fight will continue.  Senator Ray Lesniak has said that he will introduce legislation quickly with the goal of offering sports betting in the state by the start of the NFL season.  Although unsuccessful thus far, Congress may also step in to author legislation to amend or eliminate PASPA.

 

 

Ifrah Law

Ifrah Law

Ifrah Law is a passionate team of experts that understands the importance of listening to and addressing specific concerns of clients – when facing the heat of a federal investigation or the ire of a business competitor. Experience in complex cases related to online gambling and sports betting, internet marking and advertising, and white collar litigation.

Related Practice(s)
Other Sports Posts
Eric Schneiderman’s Losing Lineup
Ifrah on iGaming |
Jun 27, 2016

Eric Schneiderman’s Losing Lineup

By: Jeff Ifrah
Monmouth Park Brings Exchange Wagering to the United States
Ifrah on iGaming |
May 11, 2016

Monmouth Park Brings Exchange Wagering to the United States

By: Ifrah Law
New York DFS: Sites Agree To Armistice, Not A Settlement
Ifrah on iGaming |
Mar 22, 2016

New York DFS: Sites Agree To Armistice, Not A Settlement

By: Ifrah Law
ESPN’s ‘Outside the Lines’ Interviews Jeff Ifrah On The Future of Sports Betting in The U.S.
Ifrah on iGaming |
Jan 29, 2016

ESPN’s ‘Outside the Lines’ Interviews Jeff Ifrah On The Future of Sports Betting in The U.S.

By: Nicole Kardell

Subscribe to Ifrah Law’s Insights