New Jersey Taking Sports Betting Case to Supreme Court

NBA chief urges regulatory overhaul in US

The bill was being introduced in Congress as the US Supreme Court heard a case - Christie vs. NCAA - about the constitutionality of a federal sports betting ban (PASPA). New Jersey voters approved a measure to legalize sports betting in 2011, but professional sports leagues and the NCAA challenged the law. The high court is weighing On Dec. 4, whether a federal law that prevents states from authorizing sports betting is constitutional.

Silver has now said that regardless of how the Supreme Court rules in the case, he is keen for the government to look at new regulation for gambling in the US.

New Jersey state Sen.

"I don't agree with the current federal law; I'm on the same page as [New Jersey Governor] Chris Christie there".

"It will have ramifications far beyond the confines of sports gambling in New Jersey and it could impact a broad range of other policy domains where the states are rolling back preexisting prohibitions in the shadow of stricter federal laws". The American Gaming Association says gamblers illegally bet $150 billion on sports games in 2016.

The Supreme Court has held that under the 10th Amendment, the federal government can not "commandeer" states to enforce federal law.

Christie says his state's "long experience" of casino gaming shows that New Jersey can appropriately regulate sports gaming.

The law bars state-authorized sports gambling with exceptions for Nevada, Montana, Oregon and DE, states that had approved some form of sports wagering before the law took effect.

The state argues that PASPA violates the 10th Amendment, which says "powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people".

New Jersey has spent millions of dollars in legal fees trying to legalize sports betting. At the time, New Jersey could have allowed sports wagering if it had acted within a year of the law's effective date, but New Jersey chose not to.

"The anti-commandeering principle", Theodore Olson, a lawyer for New Jersey, argued in briefs, is both "simple and vital: to preserve the separate sovereignty of States - and the benefits that sovereignty provides within our federal system - Congress is limited to exercising its legislative authority directly over individuals rather than over States". The Republican governor and New Jersey lawmakers think sports wagering could breathe new life into Atlantic City's casinos and generate much-needed revenue for the cash-strapped state. It lost again in court.

A number of justices suggested Monday they were inclined to side with New Jersey. But the Supreme Court revived the state's hopes in June when the justices said they would take up the case.

"We're like boy scouts, we're prepared, we're prepared in New Jersey and we're ready to go", he added.



Other news