US appeals court rules against New Jersey sports betting law

A federal appellate panel on Tuesday once again upheld a federal ban on New Jersey’s bid to allow sports betting at the state’s racetracks and Atlantic City’s casino.

A federal appellate court Tuesday denied New Jersey’s latest attempt to legalize sports betting and handed the country’s biggest sports leagues a convincing victory.

In September 2013, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia upheld Shipp’s ruling.

The case stemmed from the lawsuit five sports leagues, including the National Collegiate Athletic Association and the National Football League, brought against New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and other state officials including the state’s Director of Gaming Enforcement David Rebuck. The law exempted four states-Nevada, Oregon, Montana and Delaware-which had already adopted sports betting by 1992. Betting also threatens the integrity of sports games, the leagues argued.

Judges Maryanne Trump Barry, the sister of Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump, and Marjorie Rendell ruled that the state can’t use “clever drafting” to get around the federal ban, citing language in the 2014 law that it “shall not be construed as causing the state to sponsor, operate, advertise, promote, license, or authorize” sports betting.

“Even the analysis from the court admits PASPA is criticized for allowing illegal gambling to flourish and stifling vital economic growth at our racetracks and casinos”, Lesniak added.

In 2014, gamblers in Nevada bet $3.9 billion on sports, an increase of 7.7 percent over 2013.

“There is simply no conceivable reading of PASPA that could preclude a state from restricting sports wagering”, Fuentes wrote in his opinion.

Later in 2011, Christie reversed his position on a sports betting referendum and announced that he would support one after previously saying it was pointless to try to topple a federal law.

PAPSA, signed into law in 1992, was created to protect athletes and coaches from the danger of “throwing” games. The state was trying to make sports betting happen without explicitly authorizing it, which it was not allowed to do, thanks to previous court rulings.

Justice Julio Fuentes dissented from the court’s majority and sided with the state, which argued that its 2014 law complied with PASPA because in did not create a comprehensive scheme or provide for a state regulatory role in sports gambling. The measure essentially removed state control and deregulated sports wagering at casinos and racetracks. “The decision speaks for itself”, he said.