The Fein Law Firm
  • About
    • Eric D. Fein
    • Hilda M. Hahn
    • Vickie S. Brandt
  • Business Law And Litigation
    • Business Contracts
    • Commercial Litigation
    • Telecom Law
    • Trademark And Copyright Law
    • Construction Contracts And Litigation
    • Insurance Claim Disputes and Litigation
    • Franchise Law
  • Accomplishments
  • Blog
  • Contact
Select Page

All Bets Are Off on the Supreme Court’s View of Sports Gambling

On behalf of The Fein Law Firm | Apr 26, 2018 | Firm News

gambling

Sports gambling has seen a rapid increase in popularity over the years. Companies such as Draft Kings make millions of dollars every year through online fantasy sports gambling, and states want their cut. Recently the State of New Jersey repealed a law that made it illegal for casinos and racetracks within the state to allow gambling based on sporting events. But sports gambling still runs afoul of a federal law called the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (PASPA), which prohibits sports gambling everywhere except a few states – Delaware, Nevada, Oregon, and Montana. Right after the New Jersey repeal, professional sports leagues including the NCAA, NFL, and NBA sued New Jersey to prohibit sports gambling under PAPSA. The Supreme Court heard oral argument in the case, Murphy v. NCAA in the Fall of 2017, and should rule in the Spring of 2018.

This case has a long history. In 2011, New Jersey voters overwhelmingly passed a referendum to allow sports gambling within the state, and legislation was enacted the referendum was passed in early 2012. The five sports leagues, the NCAA, NFL, NBA, MLB, and NHL (the “leagues”) spoke out vehemently about sports gambling and the New Jersey Law. The baseball commissioner went on record to say that sports gambling is “corruption.” The leagues sued New Jersey to stop the referendum claiming that the new legislation violated PAPSA. The leagues challenged the decision to repeal the law as a de facto authorization to condone sports gambling and the leagues have been successful up to this point. The most recent ruling of the US. Third Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the trial Court’s ruling that New Jersey’s repeal violated PAPSA.

However, three years later the leagues had a change of heart. By 2015 the leagues had seen the enormous money-making potential of sports gambling. The NBA’s commissioner wrote an op-ed piece in the New York Times advocating for Congress to legalize and regulate sports gambling so that it can be “brought out of the underground and into the sunlight where it can be appropriately monitored and regulated.” The NBA proposed a 1% “integrity fee” on all wagers. The integrity fee would amount to 20-29% of the total revenue from sports gambling, according to the CEO of the American Gambling Association.

So why are the leagues still pursuing the case. The issue for the leagues now revolves around who would regulate sports gambling; the federal government or the states. The leagues have been involved in lobbying Congress before and have some clout to influence federal regulation. In state legislatures, however, the lobbying effectiveness of the gambling industry has been strong, perhaps stronger than the leagues. State legislatures would also come up with several different approaches, few of which would likely involve the league’s desired 1% integrity fee. On the financial side of the case, it comes down to a turf war.

The legal issue in the sports gambling case is 10th Amendment, which reserves all powers not expressly delegated to the federal government or prohibited to the states are left up to the states. Here, New Jersey argues that it is not authorizing sports gambling, but only repealing a law that prohibits it. Barring it from repealing a law is the same as unconstitutionally forcing the state to enforce federal regulation when no state regulation exists to prohibit a behavior. The leagues, on the other hand, argue that repealing an prohibition is the same as an authorization, and that New Jersey should not be allowed to claim that a double negative does not equal a positive.

This case has large implications for the 10th amendment, which is also being tested this year by sanctuary cities that do not want to enforce Trump’s immigration agenda. If New Jersey wins, then states could theoretically circumvent federal government regulations merely by repealing prohibitions that are in line with federal law. If the leagues win, then the federal government could armchair legislate simply by disallowing states from changing their laws in a way that would conflict with federal regulations.

Recent Posts

  • 5 tips for preventing partnership disputes
  • Why should businesses register their trademarks?
  • YETI, Amazon, sue over counterfeit mugs
  • How Can A Business Protect Its IP?
  • The importance of business contracts in every business relationship

Archives

  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • July 2019
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017

Categories

  • Business Formation
  • Business Law
  • Commercial Litigation
  • Firm News
  • Franchise Law
  • Intellectual Property
  • Telecommunications Law
  • Trademark & Copyright
  • Uncategorized

RSS Feed

Subscribe To This Blog’s Feed

FindLaw Network

Let’s Talk About Your Business

How can we help you and your business thrive? Send us an email to learn what our counsel can do for you.

The Fein Law Firm

15455 Dallas Parkway
Suite 1225
Addison, TX 75001

Phone: 214-522-9596

Map & Directions

© 2021 The Fein Law Firm. All Rights Reserved.

Disclaimer | Site Map | Privacy Policy | Business Development Solutions by FindLaw, part of Thomson Reuters

Review Us
  • Follow
  • Follow
  • Follow
LGBTQ+ flag icon