Meadowlands Matters
John Brennan on sports business news, including horse racing and casinos
NJ horsemen file appeal to full Third Circuit court in sports betting case, signal Governor Christie approval
Posted on Thursday, October 31, 2013 8:27 pm
by John Brennan
Another major court action is expected Friday in the battle over whether the state can implement a law allowing sports betting at the state’s horse racing tracks and Atlantic City casinos.
The New Jersey Thoroughbred Horsemen’s Association on Thursday petitioned the Third Circuit Court of Appeals for a rehearing of its appeal against a 1992 law passed by Congress that bans sports betting in all but four states.
The horsemen add that the reasons will be stated in a petition to be filed “on or before November 1, 2013″ by principal partner Governor Christie.
“To reduce the burden of repetition on the Court, NJTHA hereby incorporates the State Petition by reference and joins in it.”
The NCAA, NFL and three other major professional sports leagues last year sued the governor in a so-far-successful effort to prevent implementation of a state law that would permit such gambling at the state’s horse racing tracks and Atlantic City casinos.
The panel’s support for a lower-court ruling in September that maintained the ban came with a partial dissent from Judge Thomas Vanaskie, who split with the majority on the specific issue of whether the sports-betting ban falls under impermissible “commandeering” by the federal government in forcing states to take certain actions.
Ron Riccio, attorney for the horsemen, wrote in the brief that he believed “the panel’s majority decision is contrary to the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States, and that consideration by the full court is necessary to secure and maintain uniformity of decisions.”
“In addition,” he wrote, “this appeal involves questions of exceptional importance, i.e., whether Congress ‘rather than regulating an activity directly’ permissibly may regulate the activity indirectly…”
Among the potential relief sought by the horsemen is a reversal of a permanent injunction against the betting and/or declaring the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act of 1992 — sponsored by U.S. Sen. Bill Bradley, D-N.J. — to be unconstitutional.
Attorneys for both sides have suggested that the high-profile case — which pits former U.S. Solicitors General on opposite sides and which has four other states joining the case in support of the anti-commandeering principle — eventually will wind up at the U.S. Supreme Court.
The 21-year-old law allowed Nevada to keep its widespread sports betting offerings, particularly in Las Vegas. Delaware, Montana, and Oregon each has the option of maintaining what was their more-limited sports betting at the time the ban was passed.
]
John Brennan on sports business news, including horse racing and casinos
NJ horsemen file appeal to full Third Circuit court in sports betting case, signal Governor Christie approval
Posted on Thursday, October 31, 2013 8:27 pm
by John Brennan
Another major court action is expected Friday in the battle over whether the state can implement a law allowing sports betting at the state’s horse racing tracks and Atlantic City casinos.
The New Jersey Thoroughbred Horsemen’s Association on Thursday petitioned the Third Circuit Court of Appeals for a rehearing of its appeal against a 1992 law passed by Congress that bans sports betting in all but four states.
The horsemen add that the reasons will be stated in a petition to be filed “on or before November 1, 2013″ by principal partner Governor Christie.
“To reduce the burden of repetition on the Court, NJTHA hereby incorporates the State Petition by reference and joins in it.”
The NCAA, NFL and three other major professional sports leagues last year sued the governor in a so-far-successful effort to prevent implementation of a state law that would permit such gambling at the state’s horse racing tracks and Atlantic City casinos.
The panel’s support for a lower-court ruling in September that maintained the ban came with a partial dissent from Judge Thomas Vanaskie, who split with the majority on the specific issue of whether the sports-betting ban falls under impermissible “commandeering” by the federal government in forcing states to take certain actions.
Ron Riccio, attorney for the horsemen, wrote in the brief that he believed “the panel’s majority decision is contrary to the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States, and that consideration by the full court is necessary to secure and maintain uniformity of decisions.”
“In addition,” he wrote, “this appeal involves questions of exceptional importance, i.e., whether Congress ‘rather than regulating an activity directly’ permissibly may regulate the activity indirectly…”
Among the potential relief sought by the horsemen is a reversal of a permanent injunction against the betting and/or declaring the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act of 1992 — sponsored by U.S. Sen. Bill Bradley, D-N.J. — to be unconstitutional.
Attorneys for both sides have suggested that the high-profile case — which pits former U.S. Solicitors General on opposite sides and which has four other states joining the case in support of the anti-commandeering principle — eventually will wind up at the U.S. Supreme Court.
The 21-year-old law allowed Nevada to keep its widespread sports betting offerings, particularly in Las Vegas. Delaware, Montana, and Oregon each has the option of maintaining what was their more-limited sports betting at the time the ban was passed.
]
