Judge rules in favor of leagues in New Jersey sports betting case

Professional sports leagues and the NCAA scored a major blow in the fight against legalized sports gambling in New Jersey Friday.

U.S. District Judge Michael Shipp ruled that the leagues may challenge New Jersey’s sports betting legislation from taking effect and can sue the state if it continues to push for legalization. The leagues argued that legal sports betting in New Jersey would violate the U.S. Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act of 1992.

“For purposes of standing, Plaintiffs demonstrated, at least by an identifiable trifle, that state-sanctioned gambling will adversely impact how the leagues are perceived by those who can affect their future, specifically their fans,” Shipp stated in his ruling.

Governor Christopher Christie signed a new law in January of this year, setting the wheels in motion for legalized sports betting in the Garden State and challenged the leagues to contest him. The NFL, NBA, MLB, NHL and the NCAA voiced their displeasure with the move, stating that legal sports betting would not only violate the PASPA but threaten the integrity of the games.

Currently, there are only four states that allow sports betting - Nevada, Delaware, Montana and Oregon. However, Nevada is the only one that allows single-game wagering. During the creation of the PASPA, New Jersey was given the opportunity to institute sports betting between Jan. 1, 1993 and Jan. 1, 1994 but declined at the time.

The next step for New Jersey is presenting a case that the PASPA is unfair and unconstitutional to the other 45 states. The state had planned on issuing sports betting licenses as early as January.

Gov. Christie's office could not be reached for comment by media sources at the time of the ruling.

If you have any feedback or suggestions for our Editorial Team, please contact us at Editorial

            share   SHARE   rss   RSS FEED   email   EMAIL   print   PRINT
Hide All Responses
avatar

Posted by rp-rt
2 years ago

LIMover55 has a very good point. sports betting is so pervasive now that it is like alcohol prohibition. Everyone that wants to can make a bet and the government is out of the picture and profits. There only function is to waste taxpayer money fighting a losing battle. For sports betting it's the best of both worlds.
avatar

Posted by LIMover55
2 years ago

IM not sure why GO OPP says hes so angry,WHY? does legalizingsports bets ,really affect your life that much?Dont you bet now ,have the same options as the players in Nevada,except that theres no sports book to hang out in?. At this point in time doesnt everyone either use a local with a online hook or use a sports book online that you fund? Im in NY legalizing sports bets for me would only mean that I have to laymy money out in advance of my playInstead of the good old fashion way ,I wouldnt get my little % from my book for turning on some players to him. And Just like weed.Legalizing would only hurt,my pocket.(weed prices would go up drasticlly if legal).Leave things the way they are .Either legalize gambling all forms inthe whole Country ,orleave it the way its been since the 20s
avatar

Posted by damonte
2 years ago

How does a country like Great Britain survive with legalized wagering?
avatar

Posted by rp-rt
2 years ago

vegasslim, You are incorrect. EVERY state did not have the option for sports betting prior to the law going in. Only states that had some form of sports betting already. And they were only allowed to offer the type they had at the time. There was no expansion allowance. Delaware, Montana, Nevada and Oregon were the only ones that opted to be grandfathered in, but only with what they allowed at the time. The only other exception was that any state that had casinos in operation for the previous ten years were allowed to begin sports betting operations. At the time this only applied to New Jersey. NJ had one year to start a sports betting operation. The regressive republican house and senate in NJ had one year to do right by the citizens but they decided to bow down to the 1%. Bill Bradley sponsored PASPA when he was a NJ senator and shill for the NBA.
avatar

Posted by Goggles-Pisano
2 years ago

The fat lady just sang. NJ and Christie have more pressing issues to deal with and fight. I don't see NJ dumping $$$$ into a possible legal pissing contest with all of these leagues.
avatar

Posted by FiguredOdds
2 years ago

Up to the people, not a judge. Get the votes, push for a ballot. PEOPLE NEED TO SPEAK.
avatar

Posted by 666LES
2 years ago

It isn't over its just going to take longer and more involved legalistics.Less likely to have legal betting in NJ when the SuperBowl kicksoff in the former Meadowlands in Feb 2014. Support Your Local.
avatar

Posted by josbran
2 years ago

Game, set and match. If I were NJ I would fight the fight using medical grass. The federal law is that pot is illegal but states like Colorado and Washington basically made it legal and other states like NJ made it legal for medical use. If I were NJ I would say darn You and open a sportsbetting operation at Monmouth Park and let the leagues sue me!!!
avatar

Posted by KaiserSoeze
2 years ago

if people disagree with the actions of the leagues, just don't patronize the games. It's all about money - if fans flock and pay through the nose for sporting events, or watch them on tv, especially at the professional level, they are getting what they want. Things change quick when league officials see less revenue coming in. As far as public perception on the integrity of the game, only a fool is unaware that many fans bet on the games already.
avatar

Posted by vegasslim
2 years ago

it is the correct ruling EVERY state had the option to opt in for sports betting prior to the law going in
avatar

Posted by prpprp82
2 years ago

YAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY FINALLY!!
avatar

Posted by oldtexx
2 years ago

BIG brother always knows best for us peons.
avatar

Posted by gfoss59
2 years ago

According to the Bloomberg article linked to above, it sounds as though this is a procedural ruling that the leagues have standing, i.e., they may ask for damages, an injunction, and other types of relief. I'm not shocked that they would at least win on this issue; had they lost, there would be no case at all. But being allowed to petition for damages, or injunctive relief, does not mean these will be granted. It simply means the case is not dead in its tracks at the outset. I am no attorney, but that is my layman's reading of it having a lot of interest in the law and public policy issues. Keep the faith!
avatar

Posted by mylife23
2 years ago

meet me at foxwoods.....the wonder of it alllll
avatar

Posted by go_opp
2 years ago

I can NOT believe the courts sided with the leagues! I thought there was NO way this would hold up. I am soooo angry and hurt right now its not even funny. Every time we get close we take a step back. I know its not over, but.....
         1      
You are currently not logged in.
Login | Signup | Help
You must be logged in to post a comment.

Top Response

Posted by prpprp82
2 years ago

"YAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY FINALLY!!"