BY FOCUS, A Leonine Business
In early December, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case Christie v. NCAA; a case with the potential to authorize sports betting across the nation should the court side with New Jersey Republican Gov. Chris Christie, a longtime proponent of legal sports betting. The case revolves around the constitutionality of the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (PAPSA), which prohibits sports gambling nationwide, save for a few grandfathered exceptions, including Nevada and on a smaller scale Delaware, Montana and Oregon.
New Jersey contends that the law violates the 10th Amendment, which reserves for the states all powers not delegated to the federal government, and that it violates the “anti-commandeering” principle established by Supreme Court precedent, which prohibits the federal government from forcing a state to do something against its will. The NCAA contends that the New Jersey law violates the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which gives federal law precedence over state law.
The case represents the long awaited culmination of a clash between a federal and New Jersey state law on the issue. In 2011, New Jersey residents approved Public Question 1, a constitutional amendment that empowered the state legislature to legalize sports betting in the state. Shortly after, in 2012, the legislature passed AB 4385, the “Sports Betting Act,” which authorized sports wagering in professional, collegiate and amateur sports at casinos and racetracks in the state; Governor Christie signed the bill shortly after. The NCAA sued on behalf of itself and the four major sports leagues – the MLB, NBA, NFL and NHL – and won, with the U.S. Third District Court of Appeals ruling against New Jersey and the Supreme Court refusing to take up the state’s appeal. This, however, would not be the end of the issue.
Setting up the second, and current, round of legal maneuvering, New Jersey responded by passing SB 2460 in 2014; the bill had nearly the same effect as the previous sports betting act, but was tailored to avoid issues the district court had with the first bill, specifically that it directly involved the state in the licensing and regulation of betting. The new 2014 law did not contain such provisions. Predictably, the NCAA again sued, and the Third District court again ruled in favor of the NCAA. This time, though, the Supreme Court agreed to take up New Jersey’s appeal.
It appears that despite a previous string of losses, Christie may be poised to pull off an overtime win when at the most crucial stage of his crusade to legalize betting. During oral arguments, a majority of justices seemed to lean in favor of New Jersey’s argument that PAPSA unfairly places the enforcement of federal law on the states, according to NPR. Such a decision would have a profound affect on every state in the nation, immediately kicking the question of whether to legalize sports betting to each and every state legislature.
The expansion of gambling isn’t a new topic to state legislatures, who have long considered incremental increases such as the building of a small number of casinos, expansion of state lotteries, and the legalization of online card games such as poker. The issue is naturally lucrative for lawmakers, who see the issue as a potential way to raise revenue for state coffers without resorting to unpopular tax increases. However, the debate never revolves strictly around money – state legislators must also contend with the moral aspects of gambling legalization, as well as other issues, including associated increases in crime and addiction. Full legalization of sports betting would bring all of these issues to the forefront in an unprecedented manner. Eilers and Krejcik Gaming, a California-based gaming research firm, estimates that within five years 32 states could legalize sports betting, telling the Associated Press that the case also has the potential to reshape sports betting on a global scale.
Outside of the courtroom following oral arguments, the loud and boisterous Christie appeared jubilant, telling reporters, “If we’re successful here, we can have bets being taken in New Jersey within two weeks of a decision by the court. We’re like boy scouts; we’re prepared.” While Christie and New Jersey may be prepared for such an outcome, no other state, save Nevada, has reached such a consensus on the issue, setting up what are sure to be contentious battles in state houses across the nation. Christie may not also be prepared for the potential floodgates that a ruling in his favor could open. It would set an important precedent for future Supreme Court rulings, and may well embolden states to push forward on issues where similar state and federal ruptures exist, chief among those marijuana legalization, a frequent target of the governor’s ire.