Decision in NJ sports betting case will come in two weeks

After three hours of argument today in U.S. District Court, Judge Michael Shipp said he will make a decision within two weeks that will determine the outcome in the New Jersey sports betting case.

Legalized sports betting in the state at casinos and racetracks is at stake, which the major sports leagues and Department of Justice are trying to halt before it begins. In all likelihood, the judge's decision is going to be appealed no matter which way he rules and we could see this case eventually wind up in the Supreme Court.

The leagues and DOJ are arguing New Jersey shouldn't be allowed to permit sports betting under the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (PASPA) of 1992. The state says the law is unconstitutional because it makes exceptions for four states - Nevada, Delaware, Montana and Oregon.

And Shipp said today that the case will be based on that very item - whether or not PASPA is constitutional.

Ted Olson, acting on behalf of the state, said the law unfairly handcuffs New Jersey because the people voted in favor of it and legislation was passed to allow it. Attorneys for the horse industry also said if the law doesn't pass, it may cripple their industry in the state, which is in steep decline across North America.

But it's a tough fight. even though the judge pointed out today that there is no other law he is aware of that makes exceptions for certain states.

”Those attacking the law have the burden. It just has to be good enough,” argued U.S. Attorney Paul Fishman.

Griffin Finan, a Washington D.C based attorney at Ifrah Law, was live Tweeting from the proceedings today and made this comment:



(To learn more on commandeering, read this helpful blog post by New York attorney Brad Polizzano.)

Whatever the judge decides, the issue of legalized sports betting is far from over. In addition to the inevitable appeals, we're seeing some huge momentum throughout the U.S. that's pushing for legalized sports wagering beyond Nevada's borders.

California recently introduced a bill to legalize sports betting and Minnesota became the latest state to do the same with a bill on Wednesday. New Jersey Congressmen Congressmen Frank Pallone, Jr. and Frank LoBiondo have also reintroduced bills to legalize sports betting.

So the tide is rising when it comes to Las Vegas style sports betting outside the desert. And Judge Shipp knows his decision will be heavily scrutinized by other states waiting to make the same move.

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 smitty73
1 year ago

just a matter of time before every racetrack in the country has a casino and sportsbook
avatar

Posted by notluckylogan
1 year ago

budweiser............I see you CAN count! just not past 5!
avatar

Posted by budwiser
1 year ago

lol i just hope books are COUNTING THEIR TICKETS in New Jersey
avatar

Posted by notluckylogan
1 year ago

What happened to the 100+ posts there used to be every day a couple of years ago?? why be so strict here??
avatar

Posted by notluckylogan
1 year ago

uh.............5 of 9 judges VOTED that Obamacare WAS constitutional.......budwiser..........you can't count!
avatar

Posted by budwiser
1 year ago

notlucky, u didn't see my correction. yes, 5 of the 9 judges thought it was constitutional. 4 didn't. so now we're picking another item, is it constitutional? depends on what judge you pick, not what your argument is. get it? i hope i'm trashed here, and wagering is allowed in nj. that's what i want.
avatar

Posted by budwiser
1 year ago

LIke I said, we have cancer, wars, violence, debt, unemployment, and all kinds of issues. Thank God we take time to go to a judge who will ensure that worst of all evils-people wagering legally for recreational purposes.
avatar

Posted by budwiser
1 year ago

Correction-5 of 9 judges though Obamacare WAS constitutional. Anyways-my point is still valid-depends on which JUDGE you pick, not what your ARGUMENT is.
avatar

Posted by budwiser
1 year ago

Of course it isn't constitutional. But Obamacare wasn't constitutional either-and 5 of 9 judges thought that. Which means...it depends on which judge you pick. In this case we got Judge Shipp, who already ruled against NJ-what kind of bs is it that he gets to rule again? You've got to think he'll do the same thing-vote aqainst New Jersey.
         1      
You are currently not logged in.
Login | Signup | Help
You must be logged in to post a comment.

Top Response

Posted by notluckylogan
1 year ago

"What happened to the 100+ posts there used to be every day a couple of years ago?? why be so strict here??"