Attorneys Mixed on Sports Betting Case

Nobody knows exactly when the United States Supreme Court will hear New Jersey’s sports betting case. Nor do they know how they’ll rule. But that hasn’t stopped numerous attorneys from weighing in on the matter. Some have filed friends of the court briefs already, both those in favor and those opposed.

“This case is about far more than sports wagering,” wrote West Virginia solicitor general Elbert Lin. “By granting certiorari in this case, the Supreme Court may well have recognized that, under PASPA, Congress has pushed its authority too far.”

Jonathan Wood, an attorney with the Pacific Legal Foundation, also believes New Jersey should win.

“Can Congress dictate to states what their own laws must be?,” Wood wrote. “If Congress can compel states to continue enforcing policies forever as long as the initial adoption was voluntary, a state would have to think long and hard before participating in any cooperative federalism arrangement.”

Equal sovereignty. the right of states to be treated equal, is a major sticking point with PAPSA. PAPSA allows certain states to offer some form of sports betting. Others like New Jersey cannot.

But Zachary Price, professor at UC Hastings College of the Law, said nothing about PAPSa is illegal.

“Doubts about PASPA’s overall validity should play no role in the Supreme Court’s decision in this case, because PASPA’s selective application to a subset of states is perfectly constitutional,” he wrote.

The American Gaming Association sees it differently than Price and said PAPSA is costing states the right to govern themselves.

“The effect of PASPA has been to freeze in place state law as it existed in the early 1990s and to interfere with states’ police powers and authority to regulate local matters of economic development and public morality,” they wrote.

Many believe the case could be heard this year with a ruling issued next year.