New Jersey sued over sports betting [ESPN]





Copy of the complaint [scribd.com]

Do these chowder heads really not get that sports gambling is already prevalent everywhere?

34. Plaintiffs' reputation and goodwill will be irreparably damaged if the violations alleged herein are not preliminarily and permanently enjoined, including but not limited to the fact that the proliferation of sports gambling will adversely affect the way the public views amateur and professional sports.

Moreover, do they not realize that a very significant minority of their viewers have some sort of financial stake in the game's outcome? FFS the NFL's viewership would take a nosedive if fantasy teams and sports betting were to disappear.

What are these sports leagues hoping to accomplish? Do they realize sports betting gives viewers at least a reason to watch their games? It's the 21st century! This isn't the 1940s-50s.

I would like to see fantasy sports prominently in the reply by NJ. The leagues can not have it both ways.

New Jersey state Senator Ray Lesniak, the primary sponsor of this initiative from the beginning, has responded to today's lawsuit.

“Let the games begin,” said Lesniak of Tuesday’s suit. “From the start, we wanted our day in court to prove that the federal ban on sports wagering is unconstitutional. By moving forward with a law to legalize sports wagering in New Jersey – a law that was approved overwhelmingly by the voting public of New Jersey – we drew a line in the sand and dared the sports organizations to cross it. Their lawsuit today means they’ve played right into our hands, and now they have the burden of defending the constitutionality of an unfair sports wagering ban which gives four states in the country – and off-shore betting operators and organized crime – a monopoly to the detriment of everybody else.

“Frankly, I was wondering when they were going to take the bait,” added Lesniak. “Now we can once and for all put to rest the question of New Jersey’s ability to determine for itself the appropriateness of sports wagering. The sooner we get into court, the sooner our residents will be able to enjoy sports betting at our casinos and racetracks and our state treasury will get the revenues from sports betting now going to Nevada and organized crime betting rings.”

Source: NorthJersey.com

A spokesperson for Governor Christie was also quoted as saying that the governor "stood by" his earlier statement (declaring support for going forward).

This is going to be fun to watch play out.

+∞


If this gets to the Supremes and New Jersey wins, helloooooo floodgates.

Get your popcorn ready!

Notice that the same firm represents the sports leagues plaintiffs that represented PStars v. DOJ ?

So it is!

http://www.cozen.com/newsroom.asp?nwid=1408&m=8&d=1

http://www.skadden.com/

This also reinforces the view that this year is the last chance for a federal UIGEA-II/iPoker bill. Once a few states have implemented their own Internet gambling legislation, it becomes a states issue. OTOH, if this constitutional challenge by the leagues against the NJ sports betting legislation succeeds, a federal UIGEA-II/iPoker bill could become must-pass in the eyes of the sports leagues, who are just after protecting their share of everyone's entertainment dollar.

One cannot say that the gambling industry is boring these days.

The reason they're suing is the same reason Uncle Sugar went after the on-line sites . . . they want their CUT.

Na, they are taking the moral high ground. They want to keep the ban in place and pretend it doesn't happen.

I hope NJ wins, about how long will this process take?

Thanks for the link sba9630, +∞ indeed, we sure are in interesting times...

yeah srsly

The ESPN article has been updated with a statement from Governor Christie.

I like the last two sentences of the quote:

Christie on Tuesday predicted the state would prevail.

"I don't believe that the federal government has the right to decide that only certain states can have sports gambling. On what basis?" Christie said. "And it doesn't acknowledge that there is illegal sports gambling going on in every state in America, as we speak. So why is this more injurious than illegal sports gambling to the operations of the league or the NCAA?"

(emphasis added)

The AP article made the front page of my local paper and is also prominent in the Philadelphia Inquirer. This is getting some serious attention. Good.

They want their cut obviously. These guys are just way too greedy.

Won't this case drag on for a while though? Or will it be expedited due to its nature? Even if it is, how could this possibly be decided this year?

Or are you saying that legal opinion is massively in favor of NJ winning (or at least a significant risk in its oppositions eyes) and that this still puts tremendous pressure on?

But in any case, how would UIGEA-II stop the floodgates? My impression was that some states were grandfathered into allowing sports betting, and it is not legal for federal law to allow some states to engage in a form of commerce while excluding others. Would UIGEA-II take away the grandfathered states right to engage in sports betting? (Not to mention the whole quagmire with horse racing).

This whole thing is very confusing to me, could you lay out the possibilities for what federal legislation could do here? I really don't see states that have legal sports betting now getting it taken away, and if they don't how can any federal law stop NJ from having it? Help me get my mind around this please, because I really don't know what to make of all this.

Well, that's what NJ is saying: It is unconstitutional to allow some states (grandfathered in) to have sports betting and bar the rest of the states.

If the sports league challenge to the NJ law succeeds (and it would have to get up to the SCOTUS to bear constitutional weight afaik), then such an argument fails and the federal govt bar on the rest of the states stands.

The sports leagues could then decide to go after Internet gambling in general through passage of UIGEA-II (which, all things considered, would still probably have an ipoker carveout, and the usual state lottery, fantasy sports and horse racing carveouts), which would bar all states that aren't grandfathered in from passing new laws to authorize Internet gambling.

On the flip side, this case puts a fire under states to pass Internet gambling legislation so that they could be grandfathered in under a UIGEA-II, which now throws some gasoline on the fire under Congress to pass a Reid/Kyl bill to stop the states from their log roll.

All in all, I'd say this court case is a boon to getting Reid/Kyl passed. Such a federal bill could eventually fail on the same basis as Christie's NJ sports betting bill (if the bill bans intrastate online wagering), but either way we still get our ipoker.

Bottom line: Legalized iPoker in the US is eventually inevitable, whether through state lotteries, state-licensed casinos or federal legislation (best option, imo). Anything that encourages states to move quicker on legalizing internet gambling in any form adds fuel to the fire for faster action on a Reid/Kyl bill.

Oh I see, the challenge potentially succeeding actually puts pressure on states to get legislation through before any potential federal action. Man we have a complicated legal environment in this country. Thanks for the insight.

The big question is the DoJ; will they defend the law or take a pass and stay on the sidelines?