For the same reason Christie vetoed the bill last time and told them they needed a voter referendum, the NJ constitution prohibits the legislature from authorizing an expansion of gambling, with the exception of within the boarders of AC:

They claim to have addressed all of his concerns, but all they did was bring in a constitutional scholar to testify that former US Attorney Christie's interpretation of the law was incorrect, as long as the servers are housed in AC, the gambling is taking place in AC.

Bwin.party tried using this same argument this summer in Argentina, that customers outside the province where they were licensed were 'virtually traveling' via the internet to the province where gambling is permitted, the courts didn't agree then and are unlikely to agree with NJ.

Also, though they added language prohibiting the type of internet cafe's that offer (cash) prizes, there is no way to prevent businesses from allowing access to these AC servers from standard internet cafe's which would likely spring up all along NJ's boarders - effectively becoming gambling houses outside the boarders of AC.


Cross posts from NVG thread:

So when Jay Cohen is offering the bet, the gambling is done where the bettor is located, but when the government is offering the bet, the gambling is done where the house is located? Sweet double standard.

I don't understand what they're trying to do. Sports betting is the only thing that makes sports like baseball and hockey halfway interesting to watch. Not to mention the NFL is about as close as a professional sport gets to being like the WWE.

The leagues are in a tough spot. If they let NJ in the door, then how are they going to be compensated for providing the product. The NCAA especially can't pay be seen as a partner in any kind of gambling agreement.

This is all going to spawn an even greater debate over just how much of our tax dollars go into maintaining colleges and universities so they can be the free rookie training camps for the nfl.

Even at the state level, colleges and universities routinely apply for and receive state grant money ( our state taxes ) for routine maintenance like new roofs on libraries so they can spend there other money on sports complexes and sports fields. It all looks so innocent to you to see your helping out with a new roof for the library. But look at all the other extravagances going on at the same time.

Yes it's all a crock, but if you're associated with anything good (education, health, children) all you need to do is establish that image and you benefit.

There are too many fish in the world that just eat it up and don't see through what should be obvious dog and pony shows.

Ironically those same dog and pony shows are what has driven the expansion of gambling throughout the US, whether it's lottery, Tribal or commercial, the argument is always in reference to all the great things that can be done for education, health, children with the added revenue.

This case may ultimately resolve on a determination of the greater societal good, the Congressionally invented national interest in protecting the perceived integrity of professional and amateur sports leagues 'dog and pony show', or the Tenth amendment inferred right of States to fund their own 'dog and pony show' by authorizing gambling.

The dogs and ponies should cancel each other out, so as long as the Federal government (DOJ) doesn't intervene, the rights of the States should supersede those of the leagues.

But is it realistic that the DOJ won't get involved in this? It seems almost obligatory, regardless of who is in the White House, that the DOJ defend the constitutionality of a law they are actively enforcing.

This law doesn't require any active enforcement, since all it does is prohibit States from authorizing new sports betting, when the DOJ actively pursues unauthorized sports betting they use other statutes (Wire Act, IGBA,Travel Act, etc).

When Delaware attempted to add single game betting to their grandfathered in parlays, it was the leagues that successfully sued them, but Delaware didn't challenge the constitutionality of the law itself.

Nevada frequently authorizes new sports betting (sports that didn't exist (MMA) when PASPA was enacted and sports betting online, e.g.) and the DOJ (the enumerated leagues wouldn't have standing) hasn't attempted to enforce PASPA there.

The DOJ did feel obligated to file a MTD when NJ challenged the law directly, but here NJ is the defendant, so the DOJ could simply step aside so the court can resolve the constitutionality of Congress permitting sports leagues to sue sovereign States.

The judge has given the DOJ until January 20 to join the suit, so it could still happen, but the fact that they haven't already done so and various other readings of the tea leaves (Obama's own position is that gambling is a State issue) has me leaning towards the likelihood being that they won't.

I may be overly cynical, but I think two recent statements by Christie over Sandy (Obama praise, Boehner dis) will make it more likely Obama will look the other way; especially since he may actually hurt a 2016 Christie presidential run more by giving him this rope that social conservatives can hang Christie with during the nomination process.

If you aren't cynical when it comes to politics you're doing it wrong, I said myself a few weeks ago:

The DOJ now has ~48hrs to join the leagues in this lawsuit vs NJ, if they don't, the leagues could 'win' the suit (PASPA be ruled constitutional) but still fail to prevent NJ from offering sports betting.

Without the DOJ getting involved, PASPA is essentially reduced to a defamation statute, the court could find that NJ sports betting does hurt the perception/reputation of sports leagues, but rule that the damages don't meet the 'Ebay standard' for a permanent injunction:
- irreparable injury
- that other remedies, such as monetary damages, are inadequate to compensate for that injury
- balance of hardship falls to the plaintiff
- that the public interest would not be disserved by a permanent injunction

Even if there is irreparable harm, is there not a way to assign a monetary figure to the damage incurred by "17% of people viewing the leagues less favorably when betting is allowed" according to league data?

Is the hardship placed on NJ, not being able to compete with NV for visitors to their tourism district not at least equal if not greater than the damages the leagues might suffer to their image?

The people of NJ voted their interest in having sports-betting in order to amend the constitution, clearly that interest is disserved if the court were to prevent it from happening.

Without the DOJ (Obama administration) getting involved to voice the argument for the supposed national public interest in maintaining the image of sports leagues, I fail to see any scenario whereby NJ isn't allowed to move forward, at worst with a requirement that a portion of revenues is kicked back to the leagues in some fashion.

TA, after so passionately opposing this on grounds of reputation and morality, surely the leagues wouldn't take a cut of the impious revenue if it were to go forward.

They'd likely create a fund the licensees pay into to "help promote the leagues' image" and/or cover "additional costs leagues will incur" investigating gambling activity by players and officials.

My guess is that the redacted pages from the leagues' depositions contained testimony about sports betting related scandals the leagues have covered up to protect their image - I wouldn't even be surprised if the guy in that gif was involved in one himself.

This is an excellent summary, well done.

Yes, the 22d is a deadline for DOJ intervention.

If DOJ stays out, which they may, I'll bet on NJ winning on the injunction case.

(FWIW, since sports betting IS already allowed in Nevada, not sure how adding NJ could pose irreparable harm.)

Well it's close of business and no word, I guess. So the DOJ is out?

Looks like DOJ is in.

http://linemakers.sportingnews.com/s...chris-christie

LOL. Well, GJGE Jersey.

The hand isn't over, the DOJ's call just eliminated a lot of NJ's outs, and losing to the leagues would likely not have taken them out of sports betting game, but the DOJ has has them covered.

The whole case should now come down to one question, while the courts have held that Congress can not commandeer State officials to take action on their behalf to enforce Federal policy, is Congress also overreaching by commandeering State officials to prevent them from taking action to enforce their own public policy?

Had Congress simply outlawed gambling on sports in all fifty States (a B&M Wire Act) there might not be an effective challenge, but their desire to grandfather NV (and ironically NJ) left the statute vulnerable, but likely not for the reasons most seem to believe.

Nelson Rose is often quoted as saying that PASPA is equivalent to Congress passing a law which says that only NV can have movie theaters with sound, but had the technology for sound been developed at a time when that such a law wouldn't have been patently absurd, it wouldn't be the lack of uniformity that would make such a law unconstitutional.

If Congress offered some rational basis for the need to protect the silent movie industry from competition, along with a rational purpose for excluding NV from the prohibition, the law might have stood as the courts have found no textual basis for uniform application of Commerce Clause authority.

One reason which would likely make a law forbidding States from licensing movie theaters with sound unconstitutional isn't that it's unfair or unequal, it's that Congress' attempt to appear fair and equal by not actually prohibiting sound movies in all but one State (because that State already had sound movies) led them to choose unconstitutional commandeering rather than constitutional preemption.

The other reason such a law against sound movies would have eventually been found unconstitutional is that the technology to view sound movies eventually made it's way into peoples homes, making what might have been viewed as a rational basis for prohibiting sound movies at some point, an objectively silly statute that accomplishes nothing but create a black market for home movies with sound.

In 1992, prohibiting public sports betting to protect the 'national past-time' may have been rational, in 2013 (given home access via the internet) many would argue that betting on sports outcomes or fantasy performances may actually be more of a national past-time than watching them, and the protected team sports leagues (professional individual sports aren't protected under PASPA) may soon not even be the most popular (UFC?).

NJ is no longer the favorite but they have at least two outs, the courts may view the rationale behind a sports betting prohibition in a post-internet world as archaic, or agree with NJ that commanding State officials not to enact legislation is by definition commandeering.

In my opinion, the case will now come down to zero questions and will be handed to the leagues because DOJ is involved. So whatever interpretive gymnastics are required for that will probably happen. That was probably gonna happen anyway, but I think DOJ involvement makes it even more likely. I really, really hope I am wrong. What do you think a fair price would be on seeing legal sports bets in NJ before Jan 1 2014?

I wouldn't bet a wooden nickel on Jan 1, 2014, it would likely take a renegade judge like Weinstein for NJ to win in district court given that it's the same circuit that ruled against Delaware.

Delaware didn't challenge the constitutionality, but without a binding precedent for commanding a State not to take action being ruled commandeering, this case is on a clear path to SCOTUS, just not a fast enough path to ever win that bet.

How will this affect I-gaming law now that the DOJ is getting involved? Will this have any impact of Christie signing off on the bill?

The feds WILL intervene in the NJ sports betting case [northjersey.com]

“This development, while not particularly helpful, is not surprising, and it does not impact our legal strategy in any way,” said New Jersey state Senator Ray Lesniak, D-Union. “We will continue to prepare for the February 14th oral argument, including by coordinating our arguments with counsel for the other defendants.”

Joe Brennan, Jr. (IMEGA):

On DOJ joining sports suit: makes it interesting, but won't make a difference in outcome. Just Fed defending their turf and reg scope.

DOJ makes suit more interesting but won't make the difference. Some kid will get free shot at The King (Ted Olson)

Griffin Finan (Associate at Ifrah Law):

I agree. It changes the optics and the story line of the case a little, but the issues remain the same

The DOJ filed a strictly ABC brief today regarding PASPA, citing the DPPA case as precedent for Congress to commandeer States prohibitively, so long as they don't require States to take any action to affirm a Federal regulation.

The Drivers Privacy Protection Act told States that they didn't have right to violate their own citizens privacy by selling their personal information, nor did any private companies or citizens, therefore it isn't a violation of any State rights to forbid them from doing something what was never within their domain.

States do however have a right to regulate gambling by their citizens within their borders, as the high court said in Matter of Heff over two centuries ago:
Like the sale of intoxicating liquors, gambling regulation falls to the general police power of the State, so commanding the States, either prohibitively or affirmatively, in this area is a direct invasion of State Sovereignty.

When the Federal government wanted to prohibit the sale of intoxicating liquors, it did so by amending the Constitution, because short of a constitutional amendment they had no authority to pass such a prohibition.

Congress could prohibit betting on sports if the Act extended to private citizens - if betting itself on sports was made illegal (much like a controlled substance), then the prohibition on States authorizing it would pass constitutional muster.

But with PASPA just as with the Volstead Act, Congress did not have the political will to ban betting on sports (or drinking), so just as they did a century ago, Congress should still need to amend the Constitution in order to prohibit States from exercising their general police power over gambling.

The Christian Science Monitor published an article today praising the DOJ's brief; http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/...uper-Bowl-odds

They echo the DOJ saying “Congress is not limited to addressing purely economic matters – it also may seek to remedy social or moral concerns that substantially effect
interstate commerce,” which is true, Congress has done exactly that in areas such as child pornography.

But PASPA doesn't make sports betting illegal the way possessing child pornography was made illegal, PASPA doesn't regulate economic nor moral concerns, it regulates State governments.

As the DOJ noted in the DPPA case, Congress can regulate the States in rare circumstances, but only when the rational basis for doing so is to protect a constitutional right such as privacy, and while the leagues may be considered 'America's pastime', the Constitution would need to be amended to give them any protection from State regulation not afforded to every citizen.

PASPA does not extend the same rights to all citizens even within it's own language, Congress extends rights to professional leagues while individual professional athletes such as boxers are given no protection from the supposed evils of match fixing and corruption.

Even if Congress could invent a new constitutional right for sports leagues to be protected from States, they would need to extend that protection over all States, the grandfather exception under PASPA is the constitutional equivalent of equating State authorized sports betting to State authorized slavery - then declaring it acceptable for the States already dependent on slave labor.

I had many of the same thoughts when reading the gov't's brief last night. The simple fact is that the law allows certain states to benefit from sports betting while denying that right to other states. Hopefully the Court will get hung up on this.

Shipp has a good resume, but he has not struck me as a great thinker. He seems to try to take the easy way out and likes to avoid making tough decisions. My feeling is that he's not the kind of judge who will declare a somewhat hot button federal law unconstitutional. I hope I am wrong about him and that he and his clerk give these motions the scrutiny they deserve.