Washington (CNN) The Supreme Court cleared the way on Monday for states to legalize sports betting, striking down a 1992 federal law that had prohibited most states from authorizing sports betting. In the aftermath of the US Supreme Court ruling in favor of sports betting legislation in individual states at the end of May 2018, online gambling is once again the talk of the town. Estimates are we won't see any actual gambling expansions or concrete steps taken to make it a reality before 2020.
New Jersey is cleared for legal sports betting!
This morning, the US Supreme Court decided Murphy vs. NCAA in the state's favor, allowing it to legalize and regulate the activity. The ruling ends a five-year battle against sports leagues costing the state at least $8.6 million.
Here's the conclusion of the court's opinion:
The legalization of sports gambling requires an important policy choice, but the choice is not ours to make. Congress can regulate sports gambling directly, but if it elects not to do so, each State is free to act on its own. Our job is to interpret the law Congress has enacted and decide whether it is consistent with the Constitution. PASPA is not. PASPA 'regulate[s] state governments' regulation' of their citizens… The Constitution gives Congress no such power.
Read the full decision on the SCOTUS website.
The complete, broad victory is good news for other states, too. The nine-member court voted 6-3 to repeal PASPA, the federal ban which prohibited single-game wagering outside Nevada.
NJ sports betting is coming soon, and other states won't be far behind.
Breakdown of SCOTUS opinion
Justice Samuel Alito penned the court's majority opinion, which was joined by five others:
- Chief Justice John Roberts
- Justice Anthony Kennedy
- Justice Elana Kagan
- Justice Neil Gorsuch
- Justice Clarence Thomas
The majority opinion centers around 'dual sovereignty' and 'severability.'
The Constitution confers on Congress not plenary legislative power but only certain enumerated powers. Therefore, all other legislative power is reserved for the States, as the Tenth Amendment confirms. And conspicuously absent from the list of powers given to Congress is the power to issue direct orders to the governments of the States.
The court contends that PASPA violates the Tenth Amendment by 'commandeering' states into enforcing a law they don't want. It extends its interpretation of anti-commandeering to include attempts to prevent states from enacting new laws they do want. In New Jersey's case, it wants to enact a sports betting law.
In trying to figure out how to implement its decision, the court considered three parts of PASPA as potentially 'severable.'
- Prohibits states from operating, sponsoring or promoting sports betting
- Prohibits private actors from doing the same
- Prohibits advertising based on sports betting
Given its stance on commandeering, none of those prohibitions can be severed without changing the statute's effect. According to the court, its 'decision regarding the anti-authorization provision dooms the remainder of PASPA.'
Dissenting opinion
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote the dissenting opinion, joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor. The gist of their argument is that the court is going too far with a full repeal:
When a statute reveals a constitutional flaw, the Court ordinarily engages in a salvage rather than a demolition operation: It 'limit[s] the solution [to] severing any problematic portions while leaving the remainder intact.'
They contend that removing the language being interpreted as commandeering would allow PASPA to remain in place and still accomplish its initial goal:
In PASPA, shorn of the prohibition on modifying or repealing state law, Congress permissibly exercised its authority to regulate commerce by instructing States and private parties to refrain from operating sports-gambling schemes. On no rational ground can it be concluded that Congress would have preferred no statute at all if it could not prohibit States from authorizing or licensing such schemes. Deleting the alleged 'commandeering' directions would free the statute to accomplish just what Congress legitimately sought to achieve: stopping sports-gambling regimes while making it clear that the stoppage is attributable to federal, not state, action.
The dissenters argue that the court 'wields an ax' on PASPA rather than 'using a scalpel to trim the statute.'
Breyer and Thomas offer separate opinions
That leaves Justice Stephen Breyer, who was of two minds on the matter. Breyer concurred with all but one section of the majority opinion, joining the dissenters on the other.
The section that troubled him explained the court's reasons for toppling PASPA. The majority essentially cited irreparable issues with the statute. Breyer contends that regardless of PASPA's flaws, Congress still has the power to prohibit sports betting.
So call the vote 6.5 to 2.5 in the end.
Incidentally, Justice Thomas countered some of Breyer's logic in a separate concurrence. He argued that the court came to the best ruling it could given the problematic precedents of severability.
Because PASPA is at least partially unconstitutional, our precedents instruct us to determine 'which portions of the… statute we must sever and excise… The Court must make this severability determination by asking a counterfactual question: '‘Would Congress still have passed' the valid sections ‘had it known' about the constitutional invalidity of the other portions of the statute?'… I join the Court's opinion because it gives the best answer it can to this question, and no party has asked us to apply a different test. But in a future case, we should take another look at our severability precedents.
What's next for NJ sports betting?
New Jersey already has partial legislation on the books regarding sports betting. A 2014 law only removes some of the state's own prohibitions, so lawmakers and regulators will still need to build a framework for the industry.
That should happen quickly, possibly under a new Assembly bill that's gaining sponsorship. It would allow the state's casinos and horse betting tracks to offer sports betting, overseen by the NJ Division of Gaming Enforcement.
Read more about A3911 here.
Monmouth Park will almost certainly be the first NJ property to accept a sports wager. Thanks to a partnership with bookmaker William Hill, its existing sports lounge should be ready to take bets within weeks of regulation.
Thereafter, the other tracks and several Atlantic City casinos should follow suit. Borgata reportedly has $7 million blueprints ready to go, and the new owner of the Ocean Resort Casino says he wants a best-in-market sportsbook.
The proposed law also permits internet and mobilesports betting in NJ. Some casinos have already put software partnerships in place, and regulators will be approving those platforms along the way, as well.
What's next for other states?
Today's NJ sports betting ruling also activates new laws in five other states:
- Connecticut: Passed in 2017; directs lawmakers to adopt regulations; more legislation needed to navigate tribal issues
- Mississippi: Passed in 2017; lifts the statewide ban on sports betting
- New York: Passed in 2013; allows sports betting at commercial casinos; more legislation needed to include racing industry
- Pennsylvania: Passed in 2017; allows sports betting at casinos and racinos
- West Virginia: Passed in 2018; allows sports betting at five casinos
These states are now allowed to move forward with regulating the industry they've created. West Virginia might be the first of the group to roll out, as regulators have had a couple months to prepare. Pennsylvania could come to market within the year, too.
The repeal of PASPA is also likely to spawn a much broader wave of legalization. About a dozen other states have recently considered sports betting bills, and several of them were on hold awaiting this federal resolution.
Timeline of NJ sports betting case
In 2011, New Jersey voters were presented with a sports betting referendum ballot question. A 63 percent majority voted to change the state's constitution, legalizing the activity within the state. The NJ Sports Wagering Act became law in January 2012, codifying the referendum results.
Later that year, the five major sports organizations filed suit against the state, citing a violation of PASPA. Gov. Chris Christie argued that PASPA amounted to commandeering, forcing states to enforce a law they didn't want. District Court ruled for the leagues in 2013, and the Third Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the ruling. The Supreme Court declined to hear the case.
In 2014, lawmakers tried again with a new Sports Wagering Act. This one attempted to word around PASPA by leaving the state out of the process. Casinos and racinos would be able to offer sports betting with essentially no regulatory oversight. Once again, courts decided the ensuing lawsuit in the leagues' favor.
As a last gasp, Christie appealed to the US Supreme Court one more time. The nation's highest court surprisingly decided to take up the case this time, granting an hour of oral arguments. The two sides presented their cases before the justices on December 7, 2017.
Since then, 'SCOTUS watch' has taken over the sports betting industry. Justices seemed skeptical of PASPA during the hearing, and industry stakeholders were mostly optimistic for repeal.
Today, the hunch became a reality. The court struck down PASPA, allowing NJ and other states to regulate sports betting.
'The legalization of sports gambling requires an important policy choice, but the choice is not ours to make.'
That about says it all.
The sentence is the first sentence of the concluding paragraph in the U.S. Supreme Court majority opinion in Murphy vs. NCAA. Justice Samuel Alito wrote the majority opinion for the Court and six of his fellow justices joined him in declaring Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (PAPSA) unconstitutional.
The rest of the paragraph reads:
'Congress can regulate sports gambling directly, but if it elects not to do so, each State is free to act on its own. Our job is to interpret the law Congress has enacted and decide whether it is consistent with the Constitution. PASPA is not. PASPA 'regulate[s] state governments' regulation' of their citizens. …. The Constitution gives Congress no such power. The judgment of the Third Circuit is reversed.'
More on the Murphy vs. NCAA victory
The 49-page decision posted to the U.S. Supreme Court blog on Monday. It is the culmination of a five-year battle that cost the state of New Jersey upwards of $8 million.
The justices that joined Alito in the majority are Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices:
- Anthony Kennedy
- Elana Kagan
- Neil Gorsuch
- Clarence Thomas
Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissented. Justice Stephen Breyer concurred with the majority but also agreed with part of the dissent in a separate opinion.
The majority opinion states PAPSA violates the anti-commandeering rule that says the federal government cannot force states to act against their interests.
Simply put, the U.S. Supreme Court rules it is up to the states to decide how to regulate sports betting.
How long until legalized sports betting is implemented in the U.S.?
Many experts predicted New Jersey would win its case. As a result, the major sports leagues, several states, and online sportsbooks have been busy preparing for this day.
Washington (CNN) The Supreme Court cleared the way on Monday for states to legalize sports betting, striking down a 1992 federal law that had prohibited most states from authorizing sports betting. In the aftermath of the US Supreme Court ruling in favor of sports betting legislation in individual states at the end of May 2018, online gambling is once again the talk of the town. Estimates are we won't see any actual gambling expansions or concrete steps taken to make it a reality before 2020.
New Jersey is cleared for legal sports betting!
This morning, the US Supreme Court decided Murphy vs. NCAA in the state's favor, allowing it to legalize and regulate the activity. The ruling ends a five-year battle against sports leagues costing the state at least $8.6 million.
Here's the conclusion of the court's opinion:
The legalization of sports gambling requires an important policy choice, but the choice is not ours to make. Congress can regulate sports gambling directly, but if it elects not to do so, each State is free to act on its own. Our job is to interpret the law Congress has enacted and decide whether it is consistent with the Constitution. PASPA is not. PASPA 'regulate[s] state governments' regulation' of their citizens… The Constitution gives Congress no such power.
Read the full decision on the SCOTUS website.
The complete, broad victory is good news for other states, too. The nine-member court voted 6-3 to repeal PASPA, the federal ban which prohibited single-game wagering outside Nevada.
NJ sports betting is coming soon, and other states won't be far behind.
Breakdown of SCOTUS opinion
Justice Samuel Alito penned the court's majority opinion, which was joined by five others:
- Chief Justice John Roberts
- Justice Anthony Kennedy
- Justice Elana Kagan
- Justice Neil Gorsuch
- Justice Clarence Thomas
The majority opinion centers around 'dual sovereignty' and 'severability.'
The Constitution confers on Congress not plenary legislative power but only certain enumerated powers. Therefore, all other legislative power is reserved for the States, as the Tenth Amendment confirms. And conspicuously absent from the list of powers given to Congress is the power to issue direct orders to the governments of the States.
The court contends that PASPA violates the Tenth Amendment by 'commandeering' states into enforcing a law they don't want. It extends its interpretation of anti-commandeering to include attempts to prevent states from enacting new laws they do want. In New Jersey's case, it wants to enact a sports betting law.
In trying to figure out how to implement its decision, the court considered three parts of PASPA as potentially 'severable.'
- Prohibits states from operating, sponsoring or promoting sports betting
- Prohibits private actors from doing the same
- Prohibits advertising based on sports betting
Given its stance on commandeering, none of those prohibitions can be severed without changing the statute's effect. According to the court, its 'decision regarding the anti-authorization provision dooms the remainder of PASPA.'
Dissenting opinion
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote the dissenting opinion, joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor. The gist of their argument is that the court is going too far with a full repeal:
When a statute reveals a constitutional flaw, the Court ordinarily engages in a salvage rather than a demolition operation: It 'limit[s] the solution [to] severing any problematic portions while leaving the remainder intact.'
They contend that removing the language being interpreted as commandeering would allow PASPA to remain in place and still accomplish its initial goal:
In PASPA, shorn of the prohibition on modifying or repealing state law, Congress permissibly exercised its authority to regulate commerce by instructing States and private parties to refrain from operating sports-gambling schemes. On no rational ground can it be concluded that Congress would have preferred no statute at all if it could not prohibit States from authorizing or licensing such schemes. Deleting the alleged 'commandeering' directions would free the statute to accomplish just what Congress legitimately sought to achieve: stopping sports-gambling regimes while making it clear that the stoppage is attributable to federal, not state, action.
The dissenters argue that the court 'wields an ax' on PASPA rather than 'using a scalpel to trim the statute.'
Breyer and Thomas offer separate opinions
That leaves Justice Stephen Breyer, who was of two minds on the matter. Breyer concurred with all but one section of the majority opinion, joining the dissenters on the other.
The section that troubled him explained the court's reasons for toppling PASPA. The majority essentially cited irreparable issues with the statute. Breyer contends that regardless of PASPA's flaws, Congress still has the power to prohibit sports betting.
So call the vote 6.5 to 2.5 in the end.
Incidentally, Justice Thomas countered some of Breyer's logic in a separate concurrence. He argued that the court came to the best ruling it could given the problematic precedents of severability.
Because PASPA is at least partially unconstitutional, our precedents instruct us to determine 'which portions of the… statute we must sever and excise… The Court must make this severability determination by asking a counterfactual question: '‘Would Congress still have passed' the valid sections ‘had it known' about the constitutional invalidity of the other portions of the statute?'… I join the Court's opinion because it gives the best answer it can to this question, and no party has asked us to apply a different test. But in a future case, we should take another look at our severability precedents.
What's next for NJ sports betting?
New Jersey already has partial legislation on the books regarding sports betting. A 2014 law only removes some of the state's own prohibitions, so lawmakers and regulators will still need to build a framework for the industry.
That should happen quickly, possibly under a new Assembly bill that's gaining sponsorship. It would allow the state's casinos and horse betting tracks to offer sports betting, overseen by the NJ Division of Gaming Enforcement.
Read more about A3911 here.
Monmouth Park will almost certainly be the first NJ property to accept a sports wager. Thanks to a partnership with bookmaker William Hill, its existing sports lounge should be ready to take bets within weeks of regulation.
Thereafter, the other tracks and several Atlantic City casinos should follow suit. Borgata reportedly has $7 million blueprints ready to go, and the new owner of the Ocean Resort Casino says he wants a best-in-market sportsbook.
The proposed law also permits internet and mobilesports betting in NJ. Some casinos have already put software partnerships in place, and regulators will be approving those platforms along the way, as well.
What's next for other states?
Today's NJ sports betting ruling also activates new laws in five other states:
- Connecticut: Passed in 2017; directs lawmakers to adopt regulations; more legislation needed to navigate tribal issues
- Mississippi: Passed in 2017; lifts the statewide ban on sports betting
- New York: Passed in 2013; allows sports betting at commercial casinos; more legislation needed to include racing industry
- Pennsylvania: Passed in 2017; allows sports betting at casinos and racinos
- West Virginia: Passed in 2018; allows sports betting at five casinos
These states are now allowed to move forward with regulating the industry they've created. West Virginia might be the first of the group to roll out, as regulators have had a couple months to prepare. Pennsylvania could come to market within the year, too.
The repeal of PASPA is also likely to spawn a much broader wave of legalization. About a dozen other states have recently considered sports betting bills, and several of them were on hold awaiting this federal resolution.
Timeline of NJ sports betting case
In 2011, New Jersey voters were presented with a sports betting referendum ballot question. A 63 percent majority voted to change the state's constitution, legalizing the activity within the state. The NJ Sports Wagering Act became law in January 2012, codifying the referendum results.
Later that year, the five major sports organizations filed suit against the state, citing a violation of PASPA. Gov. Chris Christie argued that PASPA amounted to commandeering, forcing states to enforce a law they didn't want. District Court ruled for the leagues in 2013, and the Third Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the ruling. The Supreme Court declined to hear the case.
In 2014, lawmakers tried again with a new Sports Wagering Act. This one attempted to word around PASPA by leaving the state out of the process. Casinos and racinos would be able to offer sports betting with essentially no regulatory oversight. Once again, courts decided the ensuing lawsuit in the leagues' favor.
As a last gasp, Christie appealed to the US Supreme Court one more time. The nation's highest court surprisingly decided to take up the case this time, granting an hour of oral arguments. The two sides presented their cases before the justices on December 7, 2017.
Since then, 'SCOTUS watch' has taken over the sports betting industry. Justices seemed skeptical of PASPA during the hearing, and industry stakeholders were mostly optimistic for repeal.
Today, the hunch became a reality. The court struck down PASPA, allowing NJ and other states to regulate sports betting.
'The legalization of sports gambling requires an important policy choice, but the choice is not ours to make.'
That about says it all.
The sentence is the first sentence of the concluding paragraph in the U.S. Supreme Court majority opinion in Murphy vs. NCAA. Justice Samuel Alito wrote the majority opinion for the Court and six of his fellow justices joined him in declaring Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (PAPSA) unconstitutional.
The rest of the paragraph reads:
'Congress can regulate sports gambling directly, but if it elects not to do so, each State is free to act on its own. Our job is to interpret the law Congress has enacted and decide whether it is consistent with the Constitution. PASPA is not. PASPA 'regulate[s] state governments' regulation' of their citizens. …. The Constitution gives Congress no such power. The judgment of the Third Circuit is reversed.'
More on the Murphy vs. NCAA victory
The 49-page decision posted to the U.S. Supreme Court blog on Monday. It is the culmination of a five-year battle that cost the state of New Jersey upwards of $8 million.
The justices that joined Alito in the majority are Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices:
- Anthony Kennedy
- Elana Kagan
- Neil Gorsuch
- Clarence Thomas
Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissented. Justice Stephen Breyer concurred with the majority but also agreed with part of the dissent in a separate opinion.
The majority opinion states PAPSA violates the anti-commandeering rule that says the federal government cannot force states to act against their interests.
Simply put, the U.S. Supreme Court rules it is up to the states to decide how to regulate sports betting.
How long until legalized sports betting is implemented in the U.S.?
Many experts predicted New Jersey would win its case. As a result, the major sports leagues, several states, and online sportsbooks have been busy preparing for this day.
Even so, don't expect sports wagering outside of Nevada to begin tomorrow. St john bosco poker tournament schedule. Sports wagering will still require states to regulate the activity.
New Jersey has a 2014 law on the books that removes some of its own prohibitions on sports betting. It is the law that compelled the NCAA and major sports leagues to file suit in the first place.
The law basically allows unregulated wagering to happen at the state's casinos and tracks. The state will still require legislation to regulate sports betting. The regulatory bill coming out of New Jersey will undoubtedly set the stage for how other states regulate sports betting.
Some New Jersey sites indicate they can be ready to accept wages within a few weeks. It is still unclear if that timeline is realistic.
Us Supreme Court Reverses Online Gambling
Other states are also ready to enact sports betting. Expect West Virginia and Mississippi sports betting to begin sooner rather than later. Both states have laws on the books and are ready to move forward now that the U.S. Supreme Court sports betting decision arrived.
Watch for Pennsylvania to enter the legalized sports betting market soon. As part of its 2017 gaming expansion law, sports betting is legal along with online gaming. The expectation is to see a rollout of both later this year.
Other states have sports betting legislation in various stages of the regulatory process. State legislators are likely to pick up the pace and move legislation through the legislature now that U.S. Supreme Court definitively ruled that PAPSA is unconstitutional.
The long and windy road to legalized sports betting
In 2011, 63 percent of New Jersey voters voted to legalize sports betting in the Garden State. In January 2012, The NJ Sports Wagering Act became law.
Will casino accept expired id. Expired ID's are no longer valid in any venue. A casino would not be able to verify what they need to verify on an expired ID, and would be wise to not accept it if they felt the need to ask for ID.
Later that year, the major sports leagues filed suit declaring the law was in violation of PASPA. Gov. Chris Christie argued that the anti-commandeering rule rendered PASPA unconstitutional.
The leagues prevailed in District Court and the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court declined to hear the case.
New Jersey then passed a law in 2014 that repealed the state's prohibition on sports betting. The goal of the new law was to allow casinos and horse tracks to accept unregulated sports wagers, removing the state from the equation.
New Jersey again lost its battle in the courts. When finally, in a last-ditch effort, the state appealed once again to the U.S. Supreme Court in October 2016. The U.S. Solicitor General recommended the Supreme Court not hear the case.
In a surprise announcement, the Court agreed to hear the case in the summer of 2017. Oral arguments commenced in December 2017. Experts based their prediction of a New Jersey victory on those oral arguments.
The speculation around the decision and the constant U.S. Supreme Court blog watch finally came to an end with Monday's decision.
Initial reactions to the U.S. Supreme Court sports betting decision
Donald Remey, the chief legal officer for the NCAA, issued a statement via the NCAA website following Monday's decision.
Online Gambling Us Supreme Court Case
'Today the United States Supreme Court issued a clear decision that PASPA is unconstitutional, reversing the lower courts that held otherwise. While we are still reviewing the decision to understand the overall implications to college sports, we will adjust sports wagering and championship policies to align with the direction from the court.'
Geoff Freeman, President and CEO of The American Gaming Association (AGA) issued the following statement on their website.
'Today's decision is a victory for the millions of Americans who seek to bet on sports in a safe and regulated manner. According to a Washington Post survey, a solid 55 percent of Americans believe it's time to end the federal ban on sports betting. Today's ruling makes it possible for states and sovereign tribal nations to give Americans what they want: an open, transparent, and responsible market for sports betting.
'Through smart, efficient regulation this new market will protect consumers, preserve the integrity of the games we love, empower law enforcement to fight illegal gambling, and generate new revenue for states, sporting bodies, broadcasters and many others. The AGA stands ready to work with all stakeholders – states, tribes, sports leagues, and law enforcement – to create a new regulatory environment that capitalizes on this opportunity to engage fans and boost local economies.'
The reactions to the decision range from celebratory to looking ahead to what is next.
What we know is that the new law of the land makes sports betting available across the country, should states choose to pursue it.
What we don't know is what that means for each state. So what's next? Well, it is now up to the states to figure it out.
Online Gambling Us Supreme Court Cases
Online Gambling Us Supreme Court Forms
