Everything You Need To Know About The NJ Sports Betting Supreme Court Case: Oral Arguments Begin Monday Dec 4

Everything You Need To Know About The NJ Sports Betting Supreme Court Case
Dustin Gouker, Dec 4, 2017

The US Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Christie vs. NCAA — better known as the New Jersey sports betting case — on Monday.
The case is about both states’ rights and sports gambling. Here’s a look at what you need to know about the case.

What’s Christie vs. NCAA about?

The case centers around a 2014 New Jersey law in which it partially repealed its own sports betting ban. That law was an attempt to allow the state’s casinos and horse betting tracks to offer sports wagering by working around a federal law — the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act — that largely bans sports betting. (It grandfathered in Nevada sports betting and limited forms of wagering in other states.)
PASPA gives standing to sports leagues and organizations — in addition to the Department of Justice — to challenge laws that they believe run counter to the law. The NCAA, the NFL, the NBA, the NHL and Major League Baseball used that power to challenge New Jersey’s law in court as illegal under the ban. So far those leagues have won every step of the way in the federal court system.
New Jersey is arguing that PASPA is unconstitutional, in that it commandeers states into acting on the federal government’s behalf. (Gov. Chris Christie‘s name is on the case because he signed the bill into law.) The nation’s highest court will try to determine which side is right, in its view.
While the state is using the law to offer sports betting, legal analysts believe the case could have potentially wide-ranging implications for states’ rights.

How did the case get to the Supreme Court?

New Jersey has twice tried to enact sports betting laws that challenged PASPA. The first effort, which started in 2012, was defeated without reaching SCOTUS.

The 2014 law took a different tack with a repeal the state hoped would pass muster under PASPA, or force a decision that declared PASPA unconstitutional. However, New Jersey again lost, first in US District Court and then again the in US Third Circuit Court of Appeals.
That’s where things got interesting. After initially losing 2-1 in front a panel of three Third Circuit justices, New Jersey requested an en banc hearing of all the justices on the circuit. It was a long shot that was granted.
However, the state also lost that appeal in the summer of 2016. Like it did the first time around, the state again appealed to the Supreme Court. That, again, appeared to be a longshot. The odds got even worse when the US Solicitor General told SCOTUS that it should not take up the appeal.
New Jersey’s hot streak continued, however, and SCOTUS granted its petition for appeal in June. That brings us to oral arguments, which take place at 10 a.m. Eastern on Monday, Dec. 4.

What happens at oral argument?

Lawyers for New Jersey and the sports leagues will present their arguments over the course of an hour. Ten minutes of the half hour allotted to the NCAA et al will go to the Solicitor General, which requested the time and sides with the leagues. The two lead attorneys in the case — Ted Olson (representing NJ) and Paul Clement (representing the leagues) — are former Solicitors General.
Oral arguments give lawyers the chance to plead the cases they’ve already made in detail via a series of briefs submitted to the court. They are mostly for show, as the briefs and the contemplation of them and associated laws are the main way the court’s nine justices will come to a decision. But oral arguments also provide a window into what justices are thinking when they ask questions of counsel for either side.
There are no cameras (ie there will be no live stream of the proceedings) or electronic equipment allowed in the chamber, so what takes place inside won’t be known until afterwards. (Legal Sports Report will be present at oral arguments and will report immediately afterward.)

What are the potential outcomes of the case?

The entire range of potential outcomes is a fairly long list. But most of them boil down to the court ruling one of two ways on the top level — that PASPA is either constitutional or not.

Here is a look at some of the most likely ways the court could rule:
PASPA is constitutional under one or more of several constitutional doctrines and NJ’s repeal violates PASPA. (NJ loses.)
PASPA is ruled unconstitutional and would no longer be a federal law. (NJ wins.)
PASPA allows New Jersey to do its partial repeal, but it is still constitutional and holds for all other states, unless they do a similar repeal. (NJ wins.)

This is just a partial listing of outcomes. There are a variety of other ways the court could find with perhaps less likelihood of occurring.
What the court will ultimately find in the case is a matter of speculation — or handicapping, to borrow a term from gambling. But SCOTUS doesn’t often take cases just to reaffirm a lower court’s ruling. After all, only a small percentage of appeals are taken by the court. At least four justices thought the case was worth hearing — that’s the number required to grant an appeal.

Most legal analysts seem to think New Jersey coming out of the case being able to offer sports betting is about a coin flip to a small favorite. A decision that PASPA is entirely unconstitutional would probably be about a coin flip, as well.

When will we find out the outcome of the case?

The case will not be decided on Monday. SCOTUS has a schedule of when it releases its decisions; here it is for the current term:

January 22
February – none
March 5
April 2, 30
May 14, 21, 29
June 4, 11, 18, 29

So a decision will be rendered by the end of June at the latest. It will likely come earlier than that, although the January date seems extremely unlikely.

What happens if PASPA is deemed unconstitutional?

New Jersey’s repeal goes into effect immediately. The state, however, has basically enacted a law that does not create governmental regulation; after all, the NJ law is all about simply repealing its prohibition, not taking any affirmative action in regards to sports wagering.
It would also open up other states who want to legalize regulate sports wagering. Several states have already taken action on this front — notably Pennsylvania and New York — and more are likely to follow.
In any event, it would lead to a massive and likely rapid expansion of legal sports wagering options in the US.

What happens in New Jersey loses?

If New Jersey loses and PASPA stays on the books as good law, it’s back to the drawing board for the state and sports betting proponents. The federal ban would have to be repealed, amended or replaced by Congress, in that event.
New Jersey could try the so-called “nuclear option” — a full repeal of its sports betting ban that would allow unregulated sports wagering anywhere in the state — although that seems unlikely.

Supreme Court takes up sports betting beyond Vegas
by Ryan Lovelace | Dec 4, 2017, 12:01 AM

The future of legalized gambling in America could be forever altered when the Supreme Court hears arguments in Christie v. NCAA on Monday.

The justices will review New Jersey’s decision to repeal prohibitions on sports betting, which has pitted the Garden State's governor, Chris Christie, against all of America's top sports leagues, from the National Football League to the National Collegiate Athletic Association to the horse racing industry.

Similar to his effort to win the 2016 GOP presidential nomination, Christie has lost repeatedly in the courts, but some legal experts think that is all about to change. Daniel Wallach, shareholder at the Becker & Poliakoff law firm, said Friday that while New Jersey lost six times in various federal courts, "they don't need a .500 record, they don't need to make the All-Star game, they just need to win one time, and this is the ultimate court to prevail in."

"I believe New Jersey will end up with sports betting at Monmouth Park Racetrack and any other participating casinos that want to have it by week one of the NFL season in 2018," Wallach said Friday at the National Press Club. "And according to most predictions, or most historic results of how fast these decisions turn around, we could be looking at sports betting in New Jersey by the Final Four. So, my prediction is a New Jersey victory. I’m just struggling with how sweeping the victory will be."

Andrew Brandt, a former Green Bay Packers executive and Villanova University law professor, said Friday that he thought the increasing popularity of fantasy football had "greased the skids" for the potential legalization of sports betting across America.

"I think we’re at a precipice of time where this is going to happen, obviously depending on which result, but we are at a moment in time where gambling has become evolved in terms of attitudes from sports leagues, sports commissioners," Brandt said Friday at the National Press Club. "I’ve advocated for some kind of a CGO. Every league has a CMO, a COO, a CIO, what about a chief gambling officer? Because they have to be prepared."

Regardless of what outcome the sporting leagues expect at the Supreme Court, the nation's major sporting leagues are expanding into Las Vegas, the center of U.S. gambling. The National Hockey League, which is fighting New Jersey's efforts in the courts, added a team in Las Vegas this year. The National Football League has approved the Oakland Raiders' move to Sin City, too.

Matthew McGill, partner at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher law firm that will argue for New Jersey on Monday, said his team is looking to defeat the professional sports leagues on more than just the issue of standing.

"We don’t frankly want to win the case on a ground that the leagues are just not injured here," McGill said Friday at the National Press Club. "The issue here is whether Congress can prohibit states from repealing their prohibitions on sports wagering and whether Congress has the power under our Constitution to dictate to states how they must regulate sports wagering when Congress itself has decided to abdicate the field."

New Jersey's actions repealing various prohibitions on sports gambling angered the sports leagues and conflicted with a federal law blocking certain forms of sports gambling. Christie has called the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act, or PASPA, a "dramatic, unprecedented" takeover of New Jersey's authority, and President Trump's administration asked the Supreme Court to reject the case.

The justices agreed to hear the case anyway, and their ruling could affect a wide swath of public policy controversies. Elbert Lin, former West Virginia solicitor general who has supported Christie's crusade, said Friday at the National Press Club that a Supreme Court decision for New Jersey could be "potentially very far-reaching" and affect other issues including immigration, firearm control, medical marijuana, and occupational licensing.

If part of PASPA remains intact, however, Wallach said he thinks a battle will play out between the American Gaming Association and the professional sports leagues over the limitations on sports betting.

Sara Slane, American Gaming Association senior vice president, said Friday that her organization has never put all of its eggs in one basket at the Supreme Court.

"We've got a good back-up plan, we'll be prepared to hit the ground running in a congressional fashion [if New Jersey loses]," Slane said Friday at the National Press Club. "I certainly don’t want to be in a battle royale with anyone and definitely not the leagues, which is why we’ve been trying to work with, in concert, behind-the-scenes in making sure we’re addressing any of their concerns, any of the issues, really educating them about our industry, how heavily regulated we are and really getting to the crux of what they would want to see at a federal level."

Following Monday's "battle royale" over sports gambling, the justices on Tuesday will hear a case involving the tension between free speech and gay rights, Masterpiece Cakeshop Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission.

The NJ Sports Betting Case Gets Its Day In The Supreme Court: What We Learned
Dustin Gouker, Dec 4, 2017

WASHINGTON, DC. — Did the odds of having legal sports betting in the US get better or worse on Monday, after the nation’s top court considered the constitutionality of a federal ban on sports gambling?

It appears like the state of New Jersey will get a good sweat out of its bid to legalize sports wagering, based on the justices’ questions. Several of the justices took avenues actively questioning the constitutionality of the federal ban, including Chief Justice John Roberts.

Backstory of the case

Christie vs. NCAA — the case about the possible legalization of New Jersey sports betting — finally got its day in the US Supreme Court.
The justices listened to an hour of oral arguments Monday morning. On one side, was the state of New Jersey — Gov. Chris Christie‘s name appears on the case — which has been actively trying to repeal its own state-level prohibition on sports betting.
On the other side are the NCAA and the major professional sports leagues in the US — the NFL, NBA, NHL and Major League Baseball. They have successfully argued, in the lower courts, that the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act prevents NJ from doing so. PASPA is the federal law that prohibits single-game sports wagering outside of Nevada.

The core issues in the case:

Whether PASPA is constitutional in how federal law interacts with state law.
If New Jersey’s partial repeal of its sports betting prohibition — allowing sports wagering at the state’s casinos and racetracks without governmental regulation — is legal if PASPA remains on the books as constitutional.
New Jersey and other legal analysts have long argued PASPA commandeers it into acting on the federal government’s behalf.

Who wins on sports betting?

The case now comes down to whether at least five justices agree with New Jersey’s stance that PASPA should be struck down.
Based on the oral arguments on Monday, several expressed skepticism of PASPA and its constitutionality in their questioning of attorney Paul Clement, representing NCAA et al.
Those justices included Roberts, and justices Anthony Kennedy, Stephen Breyer and Neil Gorsuch. That’s not to say that they are definitively voting on NJ’s side, as listening to questions in court is largely reading tea leaves. But that was the tone coming from at least these four justices, along with Samuel Alito.
Those five would represent the majority needed to win, with possibly Clarence Thomas also voting with that majority.
Here is a story from the Associated Press, similarly projecting that a majority of the justices seemed to side with NJ.

What legal observers are saying

Here’s a look at what some of the people in the room felt after witnessing oral arguments.

Christopher Soriano
@CLSoriano
As expected the argument was fast paced and explored many areas. But there was quite the sense particularly among the court’s conservatives that something about PASPA’s way of regulating just isn’t right. Hard to say it doesn’t commandeer the states.
11:25 AM - Dec 4, 2017
1 1 Reply 7 7 Retweets 8 8 likes



Christopher Soriano
@CLSoriano
Very quick thoughts. Roberts, Kennedy, Alito, Gorsuch, and likely Breyer leaning in favor of NJ.
11:19 AM - Dec 4, 2017
1 1 Reply 4 4 Retweets 10 10 likes


Geidner
✔
@chrisgeidner
Replying to @chrisgeidner
Incidentally, Chris Christie was sworn into the Supreme Court bar today before the case that bears his name was argued. #SCOTUS pic.twitter.com/N7llb09iPD


Geidner
✔
@chrisgeidner
First take: The justices (at least a majority) were uncomfortable with a federal law that goes out of its way to say what a state can’t do, while setting up no regulatory system of its own. #SCOTUS
11:41 AM - Dec 4, 2017
2 2 Replies 10 10 Retweets 9 9 likes


Wallach
@WALLACHLEGAL
Just got out of the oral argument. Justice Breyer looks like a solid for NJ. May be the difference for New Jersey.
11:36 AM - Dec 4, 2017 · Washington, DC
5 5 Replies 27 27 Retweets 44 44 likes


Andrew Brandt
✔
@AndrewBrandt
Oral arguments completed in Christie v. NCAA case in Supreme Court. Hard to read tea leaves but initial impression: a good day for the future of sports betting in New Jersey and perhaps, other states behind them.
11:35 AM - Dec 4, 2017
3 3 Replies 43 43 Retweets 53 53 likes


SenatorLesniak
Replying to @jifrah and 5 others
I appreciate Governor Christie’s support and the huge support of NJ voters for my sports betting referendum during my 8 yr journey which included a loss at the Superior Court & 2 at Ct of Appeals Now we’re at the threshold of Victory! pic.twitter.com/ZWb5GU4Oc4



Jeff Ifrah
@jifrah
Looks like a win Senator! I am predicting 6-3. All men voting, "yes, we want sports betting" - and all women voting "no way!"
12:00 PM - Dec 4, 2017
Replies 2 2 Retweets 2 2 likes


Inside oral arguments

Most of the hour-long discussion between counsel for NJ, the leagues, the US solicitor general and the nine justices focused on whether PASPA forces states to act on behalf of the federal government.

Ted Olson, the lawyer for New Jersey, hammered away at PASPA being an unconstitutional law that commandeers or conscripts states to policesports betting for them. PASPA, he argued, does not ban sports wagering at a federal level, it just tells states what to do. Again and again, he hammered away at the intent of PASPA, from its very language, prohibits sports wagering only as a function of state law.
This is an argument it appeared that many of the justices found compelling, as they questioned Clement along these lines. Several questioned how PASPA does not force states to act on their behalf, especially if New Jersey can’t partially repeal its own law.

What’s next for NJ sports betting?

Of course, New Jersey has lost at every stop along the way in both district court and the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. A majority of the court would have to side with New Jersey after it has failed to convinced judges at lower levels.
We won’t know the answer of how the court will find until sometime in the first half of 2018, when the court will render its decision. A victory for New Jersey in which PASPA is found to be unconstitutional could lead to a rapid of expansion of legal sports wagering across the US.
A New Jersey loss would result in the status quo, in which offering single-game wagering remains illegal in 49 our of 50 US states, despite the fact that most Americans can easily place wagers at a variety of offshore sportsbooks, to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars.

Dustin Gouker
@DustinGouker
People who observe the Supreme Court more closely than I do seem to think NJ is going to win the sports betting case based on observing justices' questions. #PASPA

1h

Howard Stutz Retweeted




Daniel Wallach
@WALLACHLEGAL
I see a 6-3 vote in favor of NJ in today’s sports betting case at #SCOTUS.

1h

Lock it in, Pa residents will be playing online thru their smart phones next fall, & OTB & casinos will be packed on the weekends with sports bettors.

Supreme Court decision a potential 'game-changer' for New Jersey
David Purdum


The transformation of Monmouth Park from venerable New Jersey racetrack to full-blown, Las Vegas-style race and sportsbook began years ago.

The William Hill Race and Sports Bar, formerly the track's cafeteria, opened in 2013. There are a few dozen TVs of varying sizes and an oval bar in the center. It's a decent-sized room, with a capacity of around 250, but would easily fit inside your typical Buffalo Wild Wings.

Painted across one of the blue walls in white lettering, it says "The home of betting." For now, though, it remains more sports bar than sportsbook.

Officials say there's a problem with the current setup: It's not big enough to handle what they believe is coming.

On Monday morning, the United States Supreme Court heard an hour of oral arguments in a case that could open the door to allowing New Jersey -- and potentially many more states -- to offer legal sports betting. A decision is expected by the end of June at the latest. Some stakeholders aren't waiting.

"We're moving ahead, getting ready to go," said Joe Asher, CEO of William Hill U.S., the official betting provider for Monmouth Park.

Thirty years ago, Atlantic City was in its prime.

Then-casino owner Donald Trump was attracting big events to town, including Mike Tyson heavyweight fights and a Wrestlemania IV in 1988.

The rise of Atlantic City's prominence as an event destination coincided with a construction boom, highlighted by the building of Trump's $1.2 billion Taj Mahal casino. It was Atlantic City's largest casino when it opened in 1990, and dubbed the "eighth wonder of the world" by its owner. But it also marked the beginning of the end of Atlantic City's first prime.

One year after the Taj Mahal opened, the business filed for Chapter 11 reorganization, according to The New York Times.

With Trump's properties struggling, construction in Atlantic City dwindled in the '90s. Gambling, however, did not. In fact, gaming revenue increased marginally year over year for the entire decade and into the new century. In 2003, the Borgata, billed as the first Las Vegas-level casino in Atlantic City, opened and energized the industry. By 2006, Atlantic City was peaking again. The 12 casinos combined to win a state-record $5.2 billion.

It's been downhill ever since.

Faced with growing competition in neighboring states and a crippling recession, five Atlantic City casinos have closed, reportedly more than 10,000 workers have lost their jobs and gaming revenue has been sliced in half. In 2016, the remaining casinos won just $2.6 billion. And that is actually good news: 2016 was the first year gaming revenue didn't decline since 2006.

"I'm hesitant to use the word recovering; I would use the word stabilized," Robert DellaFave, editor in chief of industry trade site NJonlinegambling.com, avid gambler and lifelong New Jerseyan, said of the current state of the Atlantic City casino industry.

"Now, if you look at it from an individual casino perspective," DellaFave added, "they are doing better. Each individual casino is doing better, and you do see a lot more money being invested by way of renovation ... so there is hope that we will see a rebound."

The past decade has been even tougher on New Jersey's three racetracks: the Meadowlands, Monmouth Park and Freehold Raceway. In 2009, Gov. Chris Christie nixed an annual subsidy that the tracks had been receiving from casinos, part of a deal that kept video poker and slot machines out of the racetracks.

"Horse racing officials struck me at the time as genuinely convinced that without the subsidy, the industry would have to shut its doors," recalled John Brennan, who covered New Jersey tracks and casinos for The Bergen Record for 2002 to '17. "But once confronted with that reality, they rallied. Racing dates were cut by more than half. Thousands of employees lost jobs, and many others had to accept pay cuts. It's a much smaller industry now, but it has survived."

Some racetracks in bordering states like Pennsylvania and New York have slots machines and video poker. New Jersey tracks do not, and it's left them at a major disadvantage, DellaFave said.

"[The tracks] are in a bit of a pickle," he said. "That's why I think sports betting would be definitely a game-changer."

A fully mature New Jersey sports betting market, including online, could produce $502 million in gaming revenue, according to industry research firm Eilers & Krejcik Gaming. A study by Oxford Economics found that roughly $8 billion could be wagered annually on sports in a New Jersey legal market. Clearly, for both the tracks and casinos, being able to offer legal sports betting wouldn't hurt.

That's the plan at the Borgata, where Jay Rood, vice president of race and sports for MGM Resorts International, traveled in mid-November to scout possible locations to install a sportsbook.

"We already have a great racebook [at the Borgata]," Rood told ESPN from his Nevada office at the Mirage. "We zoned in on a space that's underutilized a little bit, close to the existing racebook."

The design and budget for building the Borgata book are still being discussed, Rood said.

"Our desire is to hub it out of Nevada. Obviously, that depends on what the regulators allow," he added. "We don't think we can sit on our hands and do nothing until the last second."

William Hill is taking a similar approach at Monmouth Park.

The second phase of the transformation plan features a spruced-up, overflow area in the grandstand outside of the current sports bar, which would expand the capacity by approximately 2,500 people, according to Dennis Drazen, an attorney who represents Monmouth Park.

The third phase is the construction of a standalone sportsbook, similar to what you might find at a William Hill sportsbook in Las Vegas.

"I don't think you can have enough TVs," said Asher, William Hill's CEO.

An outdoor dining venue, currently home to The Lady's Secret Café, and valet parking are two areas being considered for the new sportsbook, estimated to cost $5 million or more. But, for now, the new Monmouth Park sportsbook is still a ways down the road. There's a very real chance the track -- and other New Jersey gaming operators -- could be taking bets at some point in 2018.

"We can be open to take wagers in two weeks," Drazin told ESPN.

New Jersey may be a first mover, if the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act of 1992 is lifted, but it's not expected to be the last state to get into the legal bookmaking game. Fifteen states have introduced sports betting legislation in 2017. In addition to New Jersey, Connecticut, Mississippi, New York and Pennsylvania have already passed legislation that would allow them to move quickly if the Supreme Court changes the game.

"We've had discussions [about Mississippi] but we haven't identified necessarily anything specific there yet," said Rood of the MGM, which owns Beau Rivage Resort & Casino in Biloxi, Mississippi.

"We would be stupid not to be looking at all viable options at this point. Any place that we have a brick-and-mortar operation, we're evaluating what the chances are of being able to offer sports betting there. It's fun. It's exciting. We're hoping that we're not just spinning our tires here. Even if we are, we think it's worth the effort to be prepared."

The push to expand legal sports betting in the U.S. began in New Jersey. The debate will be decided in Washington. For the Garden State's ailing racetracks and casinos, there's a lot on the line.

New Jersey State Sen. Ray Lesniak has been there since the beginning. Lesniak championed a ballot measure in 2011 that put the question of whether to legalize sports betting to voters. In November 2011, the referendum passed by better than a two-to-one margin. Gov. Christie signed the subsequent legislation in January 2012, and the New Jersey Department of Gaming Enforcement posted sports betting regulations on its website later in the year. That August, the NCAA, NFL, NBA, NHL and Major League Baseball filed suit against Christie, setting off a five-year legal saga that, after many twists and turns, has reached the Supreme Court.

"One of my proudest, happiest moments was when the Supreme Court took the case," Lesniak said. "I'm just so excited for this to come to fruition. This will spring life into Atlantic City, make it a heyday once again."

Been to the one at Monmouth Park....to say it is too small is obvious....

Would need a place three times the size...

Will be a gold mine if the juice is equal to offshore and Vegas...

The Aftermath Of The NJ Sports Betting Case: Trying To Count SCOTUS Justices’ Votes
Dustin Gouker, Dec 5, 2017

A former colleague pointed out to me that covering a US Supreme Court case is not that much different from covering sports, which I have done for most of my adult life.

Granted, it would have helped to have a degree in constitutional law or a better read on interpreting what the SCOTUS justices say. But watching the oral arguments from Christie vs. NCAA — the case about the possible legalization New Jersey sports betting and the constitutionality of the federal sports wagering ban — on Monday felt somewhat familiar.

At the end of the day, Monday was about scorekeeping, without an actual scoreboard. It was about who won and who lost.
Yes, people are interested in the underlying constitutional issues and what the court finds when it comes to federalism and states’ rights. But more, people were interested in what the hour of arguments meant for New Jersey’s underlying chances of winning or losing.

My sense of things was that the NCAA’s side — which wants to keep the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act in place — faced more and tougher questioning than New Jersey’s side of things. Several justices seemed far more skeptical of the NCAA’s argument than Christie’s.

That was a sentiment shared by many, from the non-lawyers, to the gaming and other attorneys in the room, to the media members that cover SCOTUS for a living.
All that being said, here’s some of the handicapping and justice counting that we’ve seen about the final outcome.

Who was talking to whom in Christie vs. NCAA?

One of the most compelling arguments I saw about how the justices was from ESPN, who talked with Dr. Adam Feldman. He founded a quantitative research site about SCOTUS:

Here’s what he had to say; Ted Olson represented New Jersey, while Paul Clement represented the NCAA:
The justices also tend to vote against the side they interact with more. Here, while Justices Sotomayor and Kagan were more engaged with Olson, Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Breyer, Kennedy, Gorsuch and Samuel Alito were more active in the discussion with Clement.

Although Justice Thomas hardly ever speaks during oral arguments, he tends to vote with the Court’s right wing, which includes Justices Alito, Roberts and Gorsuch, and so if they all vote against the sports leagues we can expect Justice Thomas to as well.
That gets us to 6-3, which was a common vote that many put out there after Monday’s arguments.

Justices for NJ?

Many major news media organizations have people dedicated to following what happens at SCOTUS. That makes sense because many of the most important and controversial issues in the US eventually find their way to the nation’s highest court.
Those journalists cover SCOTUS day in and day out, and are used to trying to handicap what they would do. So where did they come down?

Washington Post

Headline: N.J. argues that it can legalize sports betting, and Supreme Court seems to agree
A majority of the Supreme Court seemed ready Monday to allow New Jersey to proceed with its plan to legalize sports betting at casinos and racetracks…
The Post put Chief Justice John Roberts, along with justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Stephen Breyer and Clarence Thomas in the camp likely siding with New Jersey.

New York Times

Headline: Justices Skeptical of Sports Gambling Ban
The Times didn’t do any specific vote counting, but it also had a majority in New Jersey’s camp. Most of the vote counting around multiple media outlets included Justice Anthony Kennedy on NJ’s side, as well, which the NYT appeared to do.
A majority of the justices indicated that the law had crossed a constitutional line by requiring states to do the bidding of the federal government.

Also…

Others also agreed that the Court was leaning NJ’s way:
NPR’s Nina Totenberg: “When all was said and done, it looked very much as though five or more justices had serious doubts about the current law.”

Associated Press’ Jessica Gresko: “In a case being closely watched by states interested in allowing betting on sports, the Supreme Court indicated a willingness Monday to side with New Jersey’s effort to permit sports gambling.”
NBC’s Pete Williams: “The billions spent on legal sports betting in Las Vegas stays in Las Vegas. But the U.S. Supreme Court seemed prepared Monday to bust Nevada’s monopoly.”

Non-SCOTUS media

Similar to the SCOTUS media, lawyers who have followed this case or parachuted in largely handicapped it for New Jersey:
Andrew Brandt, Sports Illustrated: “If pressed to hazard an informed call, I would predict a 6-3 judgment in favor of New Jersey.”
Cato Insitute: “By my best count, the vote should be 6-3, with Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan in dissent.”
More vote counting here.

Groupthink, or an actual good day for NJ?

You could theorize the people in the room were overly optimistic for New Jersey’s chances, especially since the state has never won in this case in the lower courts.
However, it’s pretty difficult to be dismissive of a lot of people coming to the same conclusions, often independently. While the gaming industry and lawyers can definitely be victims of groupthink, the SCOTUS media came to the same conclusion in assessing New Jersey’s chances outside of that bubble.
I think it all means we can safely say make the over/under on justices siding with New Jersey in the final decision — either with a full repeal of PASPA or a narrower victory — is 5.5.
And that means the odds have certainly been tipped more heavily in New Jersey’s favor.

That still doesn’t mean NJ will win

Counting votes just based on an hour of oral arguments is still dicey business.
A lot will go on before we finally hear a decision, likely sometime in the first half of 2018. The justices will confer behind the scenes on the case, and try to get to a decision that the majority of the court agrees with.
Simply put: Don’t take out a second mortgage betting on New Jersey to be the ultimate victory in Christie vs. NCAA.

let's assume it is legal in all or majority of states soon. bad news for Vegas?

PoundFoolish said:

let's assume it is legal in all or majority of states soon. bad news for Vegas?

Click to expand...

Vegas will always be the original destination of gambling & fun, people will always visit Vegas......but they've monopolized the sports betting market since 1949, that's 68 years of making big money, & when the east coast & its neighbor California legalizes sports betting, Vegas will take a hit IMO. Their biggest hit will come from California which has 40 million residents & other west coast states. I don't think legalizing it on the east coast will impact Vegas as much.

Vegas will be fine...

Brand new market on the east coast will do extremely well with all those new bettors....they will come out in droves....especially around the tri State area of NJ,NY, and Pennsylvania....

THe RX can have a Bash on the East Coast now maybe ?

Gravy said:

THe RX can have a Bash on the East Coast now maybe ?

Click to expand...

Way to go Gravy. Breaking it down to the essential question.w-thumbs!^

If this does happen, it just might make vegas offer a lot better deals to keep people from everywhere coming out there....lately they have gotten money hungry when they started charging for parking.If they don't, then people will stay close to home and do their gambling

Gravy said:

THe RX can have a Bash on the East Coast now maybe ?

Click to expand...

A lot closer for me,..haha

thekeyman said:

If this does happen, it just might make vegas offer a lot better deals to keep people from everywhere coming out there....lately they have gotten money hungry when they started charging for parking.If they don't, then people will stay close to home and do their gambling

Click to expand...

Yeah, Vegas will have to break out some pretty good deals once Cali gets sports betting & poker & online gambling going......they still might attract east coast gamblers if they have really great deals.

How about offshore books? Won't they have to have break out some great deals as well? They will lose quite a few customers.

The Last 2 BIGGEST fuk yous from Vegas... + the newest one.
1. Black jack odds change (+ no single deck)
2. Parking fee/Resort Fees... lol
And I just saw this nov... lol

They Lowerd Roulette betting amounts. Lol wtf??
At 4 dif casinos, I just noticed on a 10.00 table MAX BET WAS 250 FKN BUCKS.. lolol

Lol jesus.. wtf??
This is obviously to stop any progression betters. Lol

How close is my state to legalizing sports betting?
Ryan Rodenberg
ESPN INSIDER

Movement toward legal sports betting hit a fever pitch during the first part of 2018. No fewer than a dozen states introduced or reintroduced legislation that would legalize some form of sports gambling.

All of the activity happened while the Supreme Court was considering whether to strike down the partial federal sports betting ban contained in the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (PASPA). The case pits the state of New Jersey against the NCAA, NBA, NHL, NFL and MLB, and if the Garden State prevails, it could grease the wheels for even more states to enter the fray.

Simply put, the political environment for sports betting legalization has seen a seismic shift of late.

To measure the change in the landscape, ESPN Chalk ranked all 50 states and the District of Columbia in terms of how likely it is for each jurisdiction to join Nevada in offering a full scale of legal sports betting options.

Last updated on Feb. 21, 2018.

Already there

1. Nevada

The only state to permit a wide variety of legal sports betting, Nevada is a mature market that has existed for decades. Many states might look to Nevada for the best practices in the regulation of sports betting. If cross-state sports bets were found to be permitted under federal law, Nevada could even be designated as a national hub of sorts, via agreements with other states on topics such as oversight, liquidity, line monitoring and risk management.

Imminent

2. New Jersey

Existing casinos and racetracks could probably start offering legal sports betting to customers within days or weeks of a favorable decision from the Supreme Court. One sportsbook in Monmouth Park already has been built and is just waiting to open its ticket counters. Other casinos in the state have announced plans to build sports books in existing Atlantic City locations too.



3. Delaware

The state moved to expand its existing sports betting options in 2009, but that effort was stopped by a lawsuit filed against the state by the NFL, NBA, NHL, NCAA and MLB. The Delaware enabling law could be restarted, with the state's lottery already offering parlay betting options on professional football. State officials have expressed an openness to pursue various options after the Supreme Court rules.

On-deck circle

4-9. Connecticut, Iowa, Mississippi, New York, Pennsylvania and West Virginia

All of these states either already have enacted state laws to allow sports betting if permitted by the Supreme Court or have fast-tracked legislation, with hearings already having taken place and, in some cases, advanced beyond the committee stage.

Moving toward legalization

10-22. California, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Oklahoma, Rhode Island and South Carolina

Each state has introduced kick-starter legislation (or publicly announced plans to do so), with hearings and votes on the bills moving forward at different speeds.

Existing laws that could be expanded

23-24. Oregon and Montana

Both states have laws on the books that permit some form of sports betting and probably could be widened in scope, if lawmakers are so inclined. The Oregon Lottery offered its pick 'em-style game for years before mothballing it about a decade ago. The Montana Lottery currently offers a fantasy-type sports pool for football and auto racing.

No legalization activity ... yet

25-50. Alaska, Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Louisiana, Maine, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, Washington D.C., Washington State, Wisconsin and Wyoming

All states in this category have laws that prohibit Nevada-style sports betting. Such laws would need to be repealed or amended before full-scale sports wagering would be permitted. These states do not have any publicly announced bills devoted to sports betting legalization.

Unlikely

51. Utah

Utah's anti-gambling stance is written into the state's constitution. Any change to existing state policy toward gambling would be a massive departure from decades of opposition to any form of gambling, including lottery tickets, table games and sports betting.

Making Supreme Court Sausage: How the NJ Sports Betting Decision Will Be Made
Ryan Rodenberg, Feb 26, 2018

Reading the US Supreme Court’s imminent ruling in the New Jersey sports betting case — whenever it is released — will likely be a chore.
Supreme Court decisions are often quite long, with 20-50 page rulings commonplace. Legal jargon and frequent citations to old cases provide near-continuous interruptions. And, if the nine justices do not reach a unanimous decision, the ruling could be splintered with one or more separate “concurrences” or “dissents” tacked on after the main “majority” decision.
With a decision in the case coming anytime between now and the end of June, Legal Sports Report provides a primer on what the most consequential sports betting court decision ever could look like after the Supreme Court’s sausage-making is complete.

Parts of a Supreme Court decision

With the rare exception of so-called “plurality” decisions, Supreme Court rulings must garner the support of at least five justices. All nine justices participated in the NJ sports betting case — there were no recusals or vacancies—so the resulting vote could be 5-4, 6-3, 7-2, 8-1, or 9-0.
One of the justices in the majority is then assigned to write the decision for the Supreme Court. If Chief Justice John Roberts is in the majority, he makes the assignment and can assign the ruling to himself or someone else. If the Chief Justice is in the minority, then the most senior justice in the majority would assign the decision. Justices Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Ruth Bader Ginsburg — in that order — are the three most senior justices.
In a small percentage of cases, a specific justice is not named as the lead author for the majority. These are called “per curiam” decisions. The most widely read per curiam decision in recent times is Bush v. Gore, the Supreme Court case that decided the 2000 presidential election.
The majority decision reflects the controlling ruling of the Supreme Court. In the pending sports betting case, the majority decision will determine if New Jersey — and many other like-minded states — will be able to allow legalized sports wagering.

Those who agree or don’t agree…

Beyond the majority decision, individual justices are also permitted to write a “concurrence” or “dissent.”
Concurrences are written if one or more of the justices agree with the result in the case, but would have reached the result with a different rationale.
A written dissent is utilized if a justice in the minority wants to explain why the majority is incorrect.
And, to complicate matters even further, sometimes there are partial concurrences and partial dissents, which is why Supreme Court decisions are often broken up into various sections with Roman numerals and subheadings.

A hypothetical SCOTUS sports betting decision

Based on the substance of the Dec. 4 oral argument in the case, one plausible — yet still speculative — outcome could look like the following:

The Supreme Court votes 6-3 in favor of New Jersey, finding the partial federal sports betting ban in the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (PASPA) to be unconstitutional. Roberts and Kennedy, Thomas, Stephen Breyer, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch comprise the majority.

Roberts assigns the drafting of the opinion to Breyer. Breyer’s resulting decision favors New Jersey and other states looking to legalize sports betting, but the ruling stop there: it makes clear that the underlying rationale only applies to PASPA and should not be construed to attach to anything broader, such as federal enforcement of marijuana laws.

Gorsuch, Alito and Thomas all agree with Breyer’s decision, but would further reinforce state rights vis-à-vis Congressional power. Together, the three right-leaning justices pen a separate concurrence to explain why the PASPA-related decision should have broader federalism implications.

Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan collectively write a dissent in support of Congressional power over sports betting, but make clear that their dissent does not spill over to hot-button issues like federal immigration policy.

Other options for SCOTUS

Although unlikely, there are a number of possibilities other than a direct “New Jersey wins” or “New Jersey loses” ruling.
The Supreme Court could opt to dismiss the case as improvidently granted if a majority of the justices determine—after further review following oral argument—that the lawsuit contains some defect making it a poor vehicle for a conclusive decision about the constitutionality of PASPA or the permissibility of New Jersey’s “partial repeal.” If this happens, then the lower court’s decision in favor of the five sports leagues who initiated the case will remain in place.

The Supreme Court could also move to set the case for re-argument at a later date, with instructions that both sides file briefs to address an additional issue that was not adequately addressed before. An example of such an issue could be the concept of “equal sovereignty” between the states and PASPA’s mandate that Nevada and a small number of other states be exempt from the law’s restrictions.
The chances that SCOTUS would choose either options are remote.

Preempting the Supreme Court

The parties in the case — the sports league plaintiffs (NCAA, NBA, NHL, NFL and Major League Baseball) or the New Jersey defendants — could also try to take action and prevent a Supreme Court decision from being released at all.
“At any stage of the proceedings, whenever all parties file with the Clerk an agreement in writing that a case be dismissed…the Clerk, without further reference to the Court, will enter an order of dismissal,” states Supreme Court Rule 46.
Rule 46 allows the parties to settle the case prior to a decision. Although ex-Gov. Chris Christie opened the door to settlement talk prior the oral argument hearing, there were no public comments from sports league executives expressing similar sentiments.
In addition, Supreme Court Rule 21 allows the plaintiffs, defendants or both to alert the Supreme Court of an important change of circumstances that could serve to impact the entire case.

Specifically, Rule 21 allows for a “motion to dismiss as moot (or a suggestion of mootness)…the granting of which would dispose of the entire case” to be filed by either side. Mootness sometimes arises in on-going cases when a drastic shift in actions or legal positions results in the case losing its required status as a live “controversy” under the Constitution.

There is no evidence that either of these possibilities are being actively pursued.

The new name of the case

There has already been one big change in the case.
Whenever the Supreme Court releases its decision, Christie’s name will no longer appear in the heading.
Lawyers for the state recently filed a letter to SCOTUS under Rule 35 “to notify the Court regarding a change to certain of the public officers who are parties to this appeal.”
“On January 16, 2018, Philip D. Murphy succeeded Petitioner Christopher J. Christie as Governor of New Jersey,” wrote one of New Jersey’s attorneys.

The caption of the case will now be Murphy, et al. v. NCAA, et al.