U.S. Supreme Court to review N.J. sports betting case; supporters react
John Brennan
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 on Tuesday morning that it would hear the case, which pits New Jersey and the gaming industry against the National Football League, as well as the National Basketball Association, Major League Baseball, the National Hockey League and the National Collegiate Athletic Association.
The sports organizations have said "irreparable harm" would result from New Jersey's joining Nevada in offering sports betting and that it could cause the public to question whether the games could be seen as "honest athletic competition."
Gov. Chris Christie said Tuesday that he was “thrilled”at the news that the Supreme Court would hear the case, since such decisions are rare.
"It is a very good sign for sports betting having a future in New Jersey," he said. “We’re not declaring victory, but at least we’re in the game, and that’s where we want to be."
Christie said he is optimistic about the state’s case because New Jersey is represented by Theodore Olson, a veteran lawyer who has appeared before the Supreme Court dozens of times and won many of the cases. “He’s got a .750 winning percentage in the Supreme Court, so I’m feeling pretty good having Ted Olson represent us,” Christie said.
State Sen. Ray Lesniak, D-Union, whose support of sports betting dates back to his own unsuccessful lawsuit on the issue eight years ago, said he was “celebrating” on Tuesday.
“We’ve been knocked down four or five times in this case, but we always get back up,” Lesniak said.
The case calls into question the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act, a 25-year-old federal law that severely limits sports gambling except in Nevada. If the court decides the law 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 the federal law 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.
“We think that everyone recognizes that legalized sports betting is inevitable, and hopefully this speeds the timeline that Congress addresses this issue,” said Meadowlands Racetrack operator Jeff Gural. “Obviously it would be a big help to our business, and I commend the governor and the thoroughbred horsemen for continuing this fight.”
Geoff Freeman, president of the American Gaming Association, said in a statement that he was pleased about the Supreme Court's plan to hear the case. "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," he said.
Freeman estimated that the illegal gambling market in the U.S. has reached $150 billion annually.
“While federal restrictions on sports betting are well-intentioned, fans continue to place bets on their favorite teams regardless,” Sen. Bob Menendez said in a statement Tuesday. “By bringing sports gaming into the light, states can collect much-needed revenue, as well as protect against underground and dangerous operations.”
The NFL and the other sports leagues did not respond to repeated requests for comment Tuesday.
The federal law in question is unusual in many respects, including the outlawing of 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 fan makes every pick correctly.
The NFL and four other sports organizations sued New Jersey and Christie in 2012 after voters statewide overwhelmingly approved 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 panels — by votes of 2-1, 2-1, and 9-3 — each time have sided with the leagues.
The first case hinged on the judge's 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.
William Pascrell III, a gaming lobbyist whose interest in the state's efforts to allow sports betting dates back to 2009, described the court's decision to hear the case 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."
Dennis Drazin, an attorney who runs Monmouth Park for the state's thoroughbred horsemen, said he expects the one-hour oral argument to take place this fall and 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," said Drazin.
N.J. SPORTS BETTING: Case continues on unpredictable path
CHRISTIE: Governor suggests NFL betting could be legal by 2018 Super Bowl
GAMING CHIEF: N.J. "has done what it needed to do" on sports betting
The news drew bipartisan support among New Jersey's members of Congress.
“I applaud the Supreme Court for taking on this case and potentially resolving a long history of hypocrisy and unfairness in federal law," U.S. Rep. Frank Pallone, D-Monmouth, said in a statement. "The citizens of New Jersey overwhelmingly support legalized sports betting and acted in a referendum to show that support. Both Congress and the Supreme Court should respect these actions."
Republican House members Frank LoBiondo of Atlantic County and Leonard Lance of Hunterdon County echoed Pallone's remarks. Last month, Pallone released a discussion draft of a bill — the Gaming Accountability and Modernization Enhancement Act — which allows states to legalize sports betting and online gambling if appropriate consumer protections are also in place.
The 1992 federal law was sponsored by Bill Bradley, a U.S. senator from New Jersey who two decades earlier was a New York Knicks basketball star. Bradley has said he was offended by he 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, Fla.-based attorney Daniel Wallach explained what happens next:
"Once the Supreme Court has granted certiorari in a given case, the parties are required to file ... merit briefs. ... This is where I would expect to see the equal sovereignty argument — that is, the preferential treatment given to Nevada and three other states, to the exclusion of the other 46 states — play a more important role going forward."
SPORTS BETTING:Solicitor general to Supreme Court: N.J. sports betting case not worth your while
MONMOUTH PARK:Racetrack promising improved food, drink experience this summer
WINVIEW:New online offering lets fans predict MLB play results
The petitioner generally has 45 days to file its opening brief, which means New Jersey's would be due on Aug. 10, and "friend of the court" briefs — those parties that want to side with the state — are due one week later.
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," Wallach said. "Generally, the court allots one hour of argument time for each case, with each party speaking for 30 minutes."