Page 42 - Public Gaming International September/October 2017

Sports
Betting Case
To Be Decided
By The
US Supreme
Court
What This Could
ICourt of Appeals’ decision in Christie v. The Supreme Court’s decision has the poten-
Mean To The Gaming
Industry In The US
By Mark Hichar
Mark Hichar is a Partner
with the Hinckley Allen law
firm and is the Chair of
its Gaming Law Practice
Group. Mark represents
operators of casinos, internet
gaming and fantasy sports
contest operators, and
providers of lottery and
gaming systems, software,
equipment and services.
HinckleyAllen.com
42 // PUBLIC GAMING INTERNATIONAL // SEPTEMBER /OCTOBER 2017
gambling (including lotteries) based on
sports events, and it also prohibits any legal
entity from conducting sports betting pursu-
ant to state law. Briefs are expected to be
submitted by the end of this year, and a deci-
sion is anticipated by the end of June, 2018.
The legal question to be decided is whether
PASPA “commandeers” states to maintain
state-law prohibitions on sports betting in
violation of the 10th Amendment to the
U.S. Constitution (which reserves to the
states or the people the powers not given to
the federal government) and the Supreme
Court’s related decision in New York v.
United States. That decision stated that it is
unconstitutional for Congress to “directly…
n June, 2017, the United States Supreme compel the States to require or prohibit
Court announced it would consider New [certain] acts.”
Jersey’s appeal of the U.S. Third Circuit
NCAA, et al. This was a surprise to many tial to change the gaming landscape in the
in the gaming legal community because the United States. A decision favoring New
Supreme Court accepts less than one percent Jersey could (1) provide a road-map for other
of petitions seeking review and the question states to follow in order to permit bricks-and-
to be decided is not the subject of a dispute mortar sports betting, or (2) remove entirely
between federal circuit courts. Moreover, the federal prohibition on state-authorized
the acting U.S. Solicitor General formally bricks-and-mortar sports betting. Either
recommended that the Supreme Court
possible favorable result for New Jersey
decline to hear the case. would allow states to decide for themselves
whether bricks-and-mortar sports betting
At issue is New Jersey’s 2014 law which should be allowed within their boundaries.
repealed the State’s sports betting prohibi- Of course, a third possible result exists which
is unfavorable to New Jersey. The Court
tions, but only to the extent applicable to
Atlantic City casinos and New Jersey horse could hold PASPA to be constitutional and
racetracks. Thus, the law allowed unregu- not in violation of the 10th Amendment’s
anti-commandeering principle as applied to
lated sports betting at such locations. In a 9
to 3 decision rendered by the full Court, the New Jersey’s 2014 law.
Court of Appeals enjoined implementation
of the law, holding that it was tantamount The potential market for sports gambling in
the United States is huge. In 2016, legal
to state “authorization” of sports gambling
at the specified locations and therefore sports wagers in Nevada totaled approxi-
violated the Professional and Amateur Sports mately $4.5 billion. However, this is a
Protection Act (“PASPA”). PASPA is the
small fraction of the estimated illegal sports
federal law that makes it unlawful for states betting market in the U.S. In March, 2017,
to operate, promote, license or authorize the American Gaming Association (“AGA”)
Christie v. NCAA, et al., 832 F.3d 389, 396-397 (3rd Cir. 2016), cert. granted, 2017 U.S. LEXIS 4279 (2017)
and consolidated with New Jersey Thoroughbred Horsemen’s Association, Inc. v. NCAA, et al., U.S. Sup. Ct.
Nos. 16-476 and 16-477. Respondents are the National Collegiate Athletic Association, the National Basket-
ball Association, the National Football League, the National Hockey League and Major League Baseball.
“Discipline in Special Education,” by Allan G. Osborne, Jr., and Charles J. Russo (Corwin 2009), p. 5.
N.J. 2014 P.L. c. 62, § 1.
28 U.S.C. §§ 3701 – 3704.
Christie v. NCAA, et al. and New Jersey Thoroughbred Horsemen’s Association, Inc. v. NCAA, et al., U.S.
Sup. Ct. Nos. 16-476 and 16-477 (consolidated).
Continued on page 74