NJ Sports Betting: Six years later, it’s official in New Jersey

[Kasept]

Court again says New Jersey can't legalize sports betting
By DAVID PORTER
Aug. 9, 2016 11:28 AM EDT

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/272ee...betting-effort

NEWARK, N.J. (AP) — A federal appeals court on Tuesday dealt another defeat to New Jersey's yearslong attempt to legalize sports betting, setting aside the state's challenge to a federal betting ban.

The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling invalidated a law passed by New Jersey in 2014 that would have allowed sports betting at casinos and racetracks. The court found New Jersey's law repealing prohibitions against sports gambling violated the 1992 Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act, which forbids state-authorized sports gambling.

"Because PASPA, by its terms, prohibits states from authorizing by law sports gambling, and because the 2014 law does exactly that, the 2014 law violates federal law," the court wrote.

Currently, only Nevada offers legal sports betting on individual games. Delaware offers multigame parlay betting in which players must pick several games correctly to win. Both were given exemptions when PASPA was passed.

[jnunan4759]

After this, the only other option is SCOTUS and it's unlikely they would even hear that case since the appelate court upheld a federal law. I don't think there is much momentum to alter that law at the federal level, since all the sports organizations are opposed.

When you think of it, legalizing betting on pro sports is not going to do the leagues any good. People bet on it now and it drives TV ratings. It would be a headache for them.

States were given an option in that law to opt in and only 2 or 3 did, besides Nevada. I know Delaware only got NFL parlays out of it. You have to bet 3 wagers in a bet, like the old bookie bar cards.

Sad for the horse industry and Denis Drazin. They've worked really hard with the best interests of the NJ horse industry involved. Their best option is to try and get a % of any new casino via a voted referendum. Worth a shot.

[freddymo]

Originally Posted by jnunan4759

After this, the only other option is SCOTUS and it's unlikely they would even hear that case since the appelate court upheld a federal law. I don't think there is much momentum to alter that law at the federal level, since all the sports organizations are opposed.

When you think of it, legalizing betting on pro sports is not going to do the leagues any good. People bet on it now and it drives TV ratings. It would be a headache for them.

States were given an option in that law to opt in and only 2 or 3 did, besides Nevada. I know Delaware only got NFL parlays out of it. You have to bet 3 wagers in a bet, like the old bookie bar cards.

Sad for the horse industry and Denis Drazin. They've worked really hard with the best interests of the NJ horse industry involved. Their best option is to try and get a % of any new casino via a voted referendum. Worth a shot.

ESPECIALLY since they are so vested in the "skilled" based Fantasy industry.

[jms62]

Wonder if they can use binary options on their exchange platform to get around this.

[Kasept]

Supreme Court will hear N.J. appeal to allow sports betting
By Matt Hegarty

The U.S. Supreme Court decided on Tuesday that it will hear an appeal by the state of New Jersey in its bid to legalize sports betting within its borders.

The decision will allow New Jersey to argue that its attempts to allow betting on sports does not violate a federal law that sought to stop the spread of legal sports gambling. New Jersey’s executive branch and its legislature have devised multiple strategies to allow sports betting over the past several years, but lower courts have struck down the plans, ruling in favor of a coalition of professional and amateur sports leagues that had objected.

Legalized sports wagering in New Jersey has been supported by Monmouth Park, which is operated by the state’s horsemen under a lease from the state. The plans allowing for sports betting have tabbed Monmouth Park as one of the sites where sports wagers could be placed, along with Atlantic City’s struggling casinos.

The court will hear the appeal during its fall session. Briefs are scheduled to be filed in August.

Single-game wagering is generally prohibited under a federal law, the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act, which was passed in 1992. The legislation included several exceptions, including an allowance for sports betting in Nevada and three other states that had already authorized limited wagering on sports contests.

[freddymo]

http://www.espn.com/chalk/story/_/id...l-happens-next

[freddymo]

http://www.northjersey.com/story/opi...ing/463080001/

With the U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision to review New Jersey’s sports betting case, the state has finally reached the metaphorical Super Bowl in its years-long effort to legalize sports betting. New Jersey has been trying to reform its own outdated sports betting laws that its citizens no longer want. These laws have harmed the state’s economy and have created a large black market. But a little-known federal law has repeatedly frustrated the state’s effort to get rid of the state's old laws.

In 2011, New Jersey voters decided—by a lopsided margin of nearly 2 to 1—to amend their state constitution to encourage the Legislature to pursue sports betting reform. For good reason, prohibitions haven’t worked. Instead, they have created a massive black market with more than $100 billion pouring into illegal operations.

Even former President Barack Obama has bragged about violating these arcane laws, during an appearance on “The Late Show with Stephen Colbert.” When the host pointed out that sports betting is illegal, Obama laughed it off, explaining that, as president, he would just pardon himself.

The Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act, the federal law at issue in New Jersey’s case, does not forbid sports betting as a matter of federal law. Instead, PASPA forbids states from authorizing sports betting, which federal courts have interpreted to force New Jersey and other states to maintain their preexisting bans.

Since 2011, New Jersey has been trying to reform its laws but has been stymied by PASPA at every turn. First, it replaced its prohibitions with state licensing and regulation, only to have the Third Circuit strike down that reform and the Supreme Court to decline review. Its second effort to reform its laws, the reform that the Supreme Court will now review, partially repeals the state’s own prohibitions.

Although the stakes for New Jersey are huge, they’re even bigger for the Constitution. A loss for New Jersey would fundamentally change the relationship between the states and the federal government. One of the Constitution’s most venerable principles is federalism, which divides power between two levels of government – state and federal – to counteract each other and ensure that neither becomes so powerful that they threaten individual liberty.

To maintain that balance, the Supreme Court has held that the federal government cannot dictate that states implement particular policies; it cannot “commandeer” them, as the court put it. The Third Circuit’s decision upholding PASPA undermines that core constitutional protection by drawing a facile distinction between the federal government forcing a state to implement a policy in the first instance and forcing a state to maintain a policy that it has previously implemented, even if the state subsequently rejects the policy.

That unprecedented exception to the Supreme Court’s commandeering cases threatens to undermine a wide variety of laws. On many issues, the federal government and states work together through a practice known as cooperative federalism. This voluntary arrangement allows Congress to pursue its goals more efficiently and cheaper and, because states must be induced to participate, it gives them influence in how federal policies are set. But what state would participate if, once it initially agreed to a policy, Congress could pass a law binding it to the federal policy forever?

A Supreme Court decision upholding PASPA would also be a threat to political accountability. If federal officials can force states to implement unpopular policies, they can escape political accountability for their decisions. Voters will understandably blame state officials for unpopular, costly, or boneheaded policies enacted and enforced by them, not realizing that, like New Jersey with its gambling laws, states are powerless to change anything.

Although it's difficult to handicap Supreme Court cases, there are significant signs that New Jersey is the favorite. Earlier this year, before Justice Neil Gorsuch was confirmed, the court asked the Trump administration to weigh in on the case, a move that required at least four justices to express interest in the case. Their interest was apparently not muted by the administration asking the court not to take the case, as at least four justices voted to grant it anyway. With four justices already interested, if Justice Gorsuch is as committed to federalism as he is widely expected to be, this case could end up being a big win for both New Jersey and the Constitution.

[richard burch]

N.J. will win this!

[Kasept]

Highlights from new NJ sports betting brief to U.S. Supreme Court:
http://www.northjersey.com/story/new...form=hootsuite

[Kasept]

Strong indication from legal observers that New Jersey will win the sports betting challenge when ruling is handed down in the Spring..

AMY HOWE, SCOTUSblog: http://amylhowe.com/2017/12/04/argum...ports-betting/

[Kasept]

Travis Waldron's excellent summary in HuffPost adding the wider implications of SCOTUS taking an anti-commandeering/states rights stand in the case: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...b07324e84022a5

[philcski]

Originally Posted by Kasept

Strong indication from legal observers that New Jersey will win the sports betting challenge when ruling is handed down in the Spring..

AMY HOWE, SCOTUSblog: http://amylhowe.com/2017/12/04/argum...ports-betting/

Assuming the justices lean the way I expect them to (federalism), NJ is going to win this, and it's about time. The all-but-a-few-states ban is unconstitutional based on the 10th amendment. It's a win for everyone- the industry, the people, the leagues (even if they don't know it yet.) I'm excited already!

[ateamstupid]

Originally Posted by philcski

Assuming the justices lean the way I expect them to (federalism), NJ is going to win this, and it's about time. The all-but-a-few-states ban is unconstitutional based on the 10th amendment. It's a win for everyone- the industry, the people, the leagues (even if they don't know it yet.) I'm excited already!

As a huge sports fan and a New Jersey resident, I'm obviously excited as well, but I don't know if it's necessarily a win for racing. The monopoly on legal online wagering going away and very murky details on what kind of piece racing will get (outside of NJ) on sports betting are serious challenges.

[richard burch]

If they allow it at the tracks it is a big win. Not necessarily for racing but just paying the bills for the buildings, employees, insurances, etc...is a big help and it should make money.

[Kasept]

DRF: Lines being drawn, set anticipating PASPA repeal
By Matt Hegarty

TUCSON, Ariz. – The Supreme Court is likely to strike down a federal law that prohibits states from authorizing sports wagering next spring, leading perhaps a half-dozen states to legalize the practice in the next five years, according to lobbyists and experts in gambling law who appeared on a Wednesday panel at the University of Arizona Global Symposium on Racing.

The experts predicted that the Supreme Court will issue a lopsided ruling in the case based on questions posed by the justices during oral arguments concerning the federal law Monday. The law is being challenged by the state of New Jersey, which has sought for six years to authorize sports betting but has been thwarted multiple times by lower courts.

Whether the invalidation of the 1992 federal law, known as the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act, will have a positive impact on racing is a question being intensely debated in the racing industry, which has a poor record over the past two decades of holding its own against new gambling competition. But, according to the panelists, racing may not face a full-frontal attack from sports wagering for some time, with only a handful of states, mostly in the mid-Atlantic, considered likely to fully embrace the practice in the next half-decade.

“We will have a limited sports wagering rollout, probably six or seven states in five years,” said Marc Dunbar, an experienced gambling lobbyist who counts The Stronach Group as a client.

The states are expected to be concentrated in the Northeast, with New Jersey leading the way and its neighbors following suit, dominos falling in a densely populated part of the country. Pennsylvania has already filed legislation authorizing sports wagering if PASPA is invalidated, and legislators in New York, Maryland, Connecticut, West Virginia, and other mid-Atlantic states are in the midst of developing their own enabling legislation.

But while the experts were relatively confident about their predictions of the Supreme Court decision and the scope of legal sports wagering, they were far less certain about how state legislatures would regulate the process, including whether racetracks and offtrack betting locations would be allowed to run their own sports-betting operations (at least outside of New Jersey, where racetracks were identified early on as licensees).

“We’re going to be dealing with a different set of regulatory systems, a different set of concerns in every state,” said Jessica Fiel, an associate attorney at Ifrah Law. “But in every state, you are going to face two questions: How do we keep the games and citizens safe, and how do we make money off of it?”

The desire by states to tax the activity, coupled with the stated desires of sports leagues to begin receiving cuts on wagers made on their product, also has led to questions over whether the standard business model used in Vegas will suffice in the future. Under that model, bettors generally must put up 11 dollars to win 10 dollars, which, coupled with existing taxes, results in an approximate margin of 4.5 percent for a bookmaker who balances the books correctly and successfully mitigates risk.

But with other actors now expected to demand their own cut, that has led to speculation that the Vegas model will have to be modified significantly if bookmakers are to make a profit.

“The imbalance caused by burdensome taxation and payments to all the entities seeking entitlements, or ‘slivers,’ will cause New Jersey sports book operators to move from the existing 11-10 relationship to betting odds that are 12-10 or even 13-10,” wrote Vic Salerno, a longtime sports-betting executive who is president of two online sports-betting companies, in an editorial for CDC Gaming Reports, an online gambling publication. “In this scenario, the black market will flourish, and the casinos will flounder under the crushing weight of taxes and open palms.”

On the panel, Dunbar said there is no question that the leagues will be seeking a significant share of bets on their games, citing recent meetings with NBA officials and the league’s lobbying in Washington D.C.

“The NBA is the one that is very aggressive on the Hill, staffed very well, very active,” Dunbar said. “Everybody is going to be paying the NBA, whether you are a vendor or a bet-taker. That’s their model.”

And how might the leagues seek to enforce their rights? The panelists believed that the leagues might seek shelter under the Wire Act, a law that currently prevents gambling over interstate lines, or the sports leagues’ own federal version of racing’s exemption to the Wire Act. That could lead to a convoluted legal battle in Washington and state legislatures that could take years to untangle.

In addition, Dunbar said that there also is concern that the Justice Department, which is headed by the ultraconservative Jeff Sessions, might attempt to step in and stop betting on sports contests that are not located in the states where betting is legal, also using the Wire Act.

“I think the Wire Act makes this whole area ripe for litigation,” said Alex Waldrop, president of the National Thoroughbred Racing Association, which conducts federal lobbying efforts on behalf of racing.

[RHT2004]

Will I be able to bet sports at a gas station like the lotto? Exciting times to be alive.

[Kasept]

Originally Posted by RHT2004

Will I be able to bet sports at a gas station like the lotto?

At some point, in certain of the states, likely yes. Especially in the ones that have their Lottery Corporation involved in the process. You can in Canada for example where Ontario Lottery Corp. and Lotto Quebec manage the sports betting parlay cards.

[philcski]

Originally Posted by Kasept

At some point, in certain of the states, likely yes. Especially in the ones that have their Lottery Corporation involved in the process. You can in Canada for example where Ontario Lottery Corp. and Lotto Quebec manage the sports betting parlay cards.

Other than crappy odds and requiring 3 team parlays, OLC does a good job. You can literally bet anywhere- 7 Eleven, etc.

[richard burch]

Originally Posted by RHT2004

Will I be able to bet sports at a gas station like the lotto? Exciting times to be alive.

Can never hit on that damn Lotto....

[Kasept]

Word circulating the SCOTUS decision to green light Sports Betting will come tomorrow..