SBR Top-Rated Sportsbooks
Department Of Justice Steps Into Fight Over Sports Gambling In New Jersey
http://www.forbes.com/sites/darrenhe...in-new-jersey/
On August 7, 2012, the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), Major League Baseball (MLB), National Football League (NFL), National Basketball Association (NBA), and National Hockey League (NHL) instituted a lawsuit to prevent the State of New Jersey from sponsoring a desired sports gambling system. The Complaint was filed in response to New Jersey’s intention to distribute licenses allowing specific establishments to provide sports betting parlors for the purpose of placing bets on professional and college matches. Standing in the way of New Jersey’s efforts are the various leagues and 28 U.S.C. §3702, also known as the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (PASPA), a federal law enacted in 1992 that makes it illegal for a governmental entity or person to sponsor, operate, advertise, promote, license, or authorize any type of gambling based on one or more amateur or professional competitive games or on how the athletes perform in those games.
The lawsuit is still pending, but lost in the mix of Super Bowl coverage was what could be a very important filing by the federal Department of Justice (DOJ). This past Friday, the DOJ filed a memorandum in support of the constitutionality of PASPA. The thirty-three page document focuses on three key areas: (1) the Tenth Amendment; (2) the Commerce Clause; and (3) Due Process and Equal Protection principles. The Department’s simple conclusion is that PASPA does not violate any provision of the Constitution, and it should be upheld. However, the DOJ did note that those constitutional challenges to PASPA have not been previously addressed by a court.
[Document: Memorandum in Support of the Constitutionality of the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act]
The Department of Justice first tackled the argument that PASPA violates the anti-commandeering principles of the Tenth Amendment. It reasoned that the doctrine prohibits Congress from requiring states to take affirmative actions to implement a federal regulatory plan, and distinguishes that type of plan from PASPA, which restricts action (in the form of sports gambling) instead of forcing action by the State of New Jersey.
Next, the memorandum moved on to a discussion on the Commerce Clause, and deduced that because it is reasonable to believe that sports gambling within a state would have a substantial effect on interstate commerce and since PASPA is a rational method used to stop the spread of sports gambling and to “guard the integrity of athletic competitions,” Congress’ Commerce Clause authority was not abused when it adopted the Act. ”In positing that ‘sports betting has a substantial effect on interstate commerce’, the DOJ is implicitly acknowledging the vast amount of unregulated gambling that takes place outside the purview of regulation in Nevada, Delaware, and Montana (Oregon, the fourth state grandfathered in under PASPA doesn’t currently offer any sports-related wagering),” explained Ryan Rodenberg, an assistant professor of sports law analytics at Florida State University to Forbes.com. “Judge Shipp may seize on this point to flush out the extent of such illegal gambling. By most estimates, less than 1% of American sports gambling takes place in Nevada, a jurisdiction that has had a several decade head start on New Jersey…but is still a relatively small-time player in overall gambling. Accordingly, NJ should be able to posit that its proposed sports wagering system would not result in a tidal wave of gambling corruption.”
Last, New Jersey’s due process and equal protection arguments were dismissed on the grounds that no new states were admitted into the Union since PASPA was implemented and the Fifth Amendment protects only “persons” and does not extend to States. However, Rodenberg says it is important remember that the state of New Jersey is not a formal party to this lawsuit. ”When the sports league plaintiffs filed their complaint in August 2012, they sued Governor Chris Christie and two other state employees individually. Lawyers for NJ will sure bring this up.”
Lawyers for New Jersey will have an opportunity to rebut many of the statements written in the DOJ’s memorandum at a scheduled upcoming oral argument. But no matter what is said at oral arguments, the DOJ’s involvement changes the dynamics of the pending litigation. ”The Department of Justice’s brief introduces the court to a powerful ally of these plaintiffs,” said Stuart Hoegner of Gaming Counsel Professional Corporation, a boutique law practice focused on the needs of the international gaming and betting sector. “Constitutional positions coming from the plaintiffs are one thing, but Judge Shipp may pay those arguments more respect and attention when coming directly from the executive branch. It’s not dispositive; the court will make a determination on the merits. But it lands a persuasive intervenor in the case to help the leagues.”
While the Department of Justice does its best to keep state sponsored sports betting far from New Jersey, full-fledged sports gambling continues to exist and flourish in Nevada. The official justification for the disparity was provided by the Senate Judiciary Committee when PASPA was originally up for debate. It said, “[a]lthough the committee firmly believes that all such sports gambling is harmful, it has no wish to apply this new prohibition retroactively . . .or to prohibit lawful sports gambling schemes . . . that were in operation when the legislation was introduced.”
Another note (that is not as important as it is interesting) is that twenty years ago, the Department of Justice expressed a concern that PASPA raised federalism issues, and said that it was “particularly troubling that [PASPA] would permit enforcement of its provisions by sports leagues.” The make-up and views of the DOJ may certainly change over time. The key question is how will the pending litigation against New Jersey be changed (if at all) by the memorandum recently filed by the twenty-first century version of the Department of Justice.
Reply With Quote
