Update on New Jersey Sports Betting from Today (12/18/2012)
POSTED ON TUESDAY, DECEMBER 18, 2012 3:30 PM
BY JOHN BRENNAN
A federal judge reserved decision Tuesday in a lawsuit by the NCAA and four sports leagues designed to thwart the implementation of sports betting at Atlantic City casinos and the state’s racetracks.
U.S. District Judge Michael Shipp heard more than an hour of oral argument – with the state’s case being made by nationally-known attorney Ted Olson – about whether the leagues have legal standing to bring the suit before declaring that he would offer a written decision by Friday:
The leagues filed in suit in August, citing a 20-year-old federal law that bans sports betting in 46 states – including New Jersey. Governor Christie signed a sports betting bill into law earlier this year, then challenged those who objected to sue him.
Congress has granted the leagues the right to try to sue to stop any of those 46 states from offering sports betting, but Olson noted that the leagues also must show they would be harmed by the New Jersey law.
Attorney Jeffrey Mishkin, representing the leagues, cited precedents that set a relatively low bar for interested parties to gain standing – including the leagues having “a personal stake” in New Jersey seeking to use their games to raise revenue from betting.
Mishkin said that it is clear that the leagues would suffer from a negative perception by many fans should extensive sports betting be legal beyond Nevada.
“Every dropped pass, every missed free throw becomes an object of suspicion,” Mishkin said.
Shipp pointed to the state’s allegations that the leagues’ support of fantasy sports play – including games where money could be involved – makes their opposition to legalized sports betting hypocritical.
But Mishkin dismissed the claim, saying, “It’s the difference between playing Monopoly, and being in the real estate market.”
Olson cited previous federal court rulings that found that to attain standing, plaintiffs must show “identifiable, concrete injury.” He also referred to rulings that concluded that when conferring standing to parties forces a judge to render an opinion on the constitutionality of a law, the standard of granting standing must be more stringent.
Most of the facts of the case are not in dispute: the question is whether the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act of 1992 is constitutional. The state contends that Congress can’t grant some states the right to raise revenues by offering sports betting while barring others from doing so, while also questioning Congress’ right to regulate intrastate commerce such as New Jersey sports betting.
The two sides painted starkly different pictures of the impact of New Jersey being allowed to offer the wagering.
Olson contended that it would simply mean that the state would be able to regulate gambling that already exists in illegal form, offering consumers legal protections while also producing tax dollars. But Mishkin countered that illegal bookies would be able to keep their customer base, with state-sponsored betting leading to a significant influx of new bettors once the stigma of illegality was removed.
Olson is best-known for being on the winning side of the Bush v. Gore case in 2000 that decided the Presidential election in favor of George W. Bush, but he also has won several landmark cases for liberal causes.
The state has agreed to a moratorium on granting sports betting licenses until Jan. 9, with the thoroughbred horsemen informing the court that they seek to offer wagering at Monmouth Park as soon as possible.
Shipp has given the federal government until Jan. 20 to intervene in the case, since the state is challenging a federal law.
http://blog.northjersey.com/meadowlandsmatters/4489/breaking-no-decision-today-in-nj-sports-betting-case/
BY JOHN BRENNAN
A federal judge reserved decision Tuesday in a lawsuit by the NCAA and four sports leagues designed to thwart the implementation of sports betting at Atlantic City casinos and the state’s racetracks.
U.S. District Judge Michael Shipp heard more than an hour of oral argument – with the state’s case being made by nationally-known attorney Ted Olson – about whether the leagues have legal standing to bring the suit before declaring that he would offer a written decision by Friday:
The leagues filed in suit in August, citing a 20-year-old federal law that bans sports betting in 46 states – including New Jersey. Governor Christie signed a sports betting bill into law earlier this year, then challenged those who objected to sue him.
Congress has granted the leagues the right to try to sue to stop any of those 46 states from offering sports betting, but Olson noted that the leagues also must show they would be harmed by the New Jersey law.
Attorney Jeffrey Mishkin, representing the leagues, cited precedents that set a relatively low bar for interested parties to gain standing – including the leagues having “a personal stake” in New Jersey seeking to use their games to raise revenue from betting.
Mishkin said that it is clear that the leagues would suffer from a negative perception by many fans should extensive sports betting be legal beyond Nevada.
“Every dropped pass, every missed free throw becomes an object of suspicion,” Mishkin said.
Shipp pointed to the state’s allegations that the leagues’ support of fantasy sports play – including games where money could be involved – makes their opposition to legalized sports betting hypocritical.
But Mishkin dismissed the claim, saying, “It’s the difference between playing Monopoly, and being in the real estate market.”
Olson cited previous federal court rulings that found that to attain standing, plaintiffs must show “identifiable, concrete injury.” He also referred to rulings that concluded that when conferring standing to parties forces a judge to render an opinion on the constitutionality of a law, the standard of granting standing must be more stringent.
Most of the facts of the case are not in dispute: the question is whether the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act of 1992 is constitutional. The state contends that Congress can’t grant some states the right to raise revenues by offering sports betting while barring others from doing so, while also questioning Congress’ right to regulate intrastate commerce such as New Jersey sports betting.
The two sides painted starkly different pictures of the impact of New Jersey being allowed to offer the wagering.
Olson contended that it would simply mean that the state would be able to regulate gambling that already exists in illegal form, offering consumers legal protections while also producing tax dollars. But Mishkin countered that illegal bookies would be able to keep their customer base, with state-sponsored betting leading to a significant influx of new bettors once the stigma of illegality was removed.
Olson is best-known for being on the winning side of the Bush v. Gore case in 2000 that decided the Presidential election in favor of George W. Bush, but he also has won several landmark cases for liberal causes.
The state has agreed to a moratorium on granting sports betting licenses until Jan. 9, with the thoroughbred horsemen informing the court that they seek to offer wagering at Monmouth Park as soon as possible.
Shipp has given the federal government until Jan. 20 to intervene in the case, since the state is challenging a federal law.
http://blog.northjersey.com/meadowlandsmatters/4489/breaking-no-decision-today-in-nj-sports-betting-case/
