Several Supreme Court justices hearing the New Jersey sports gambling case yesterday wondered why the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act "was improper, since the federal government has regulatory power over interstate commerce and Congress was taking a clear stance against betting on sports," according to Robert Barnes of the WASHINGTON POST. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg asked Ted Olson, who was representing New Jersey, "Isn't that what the government does whenever it preempts state laws? It says, 'You can't regulate.'" Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan also were "protective of the federal government's prerogatives to preempt state regulatory power in the face of a federal statute that covers the subject" (WASHINGTON POST, 12/5). However, in Atlantic City, Gresko & Huba reported other justices "suggested they would side with New Jersey." Justice Anthony Kennedy told Paul Clement, who was arguing for the sports leagues, that the law "seemed like impermissible 'commandeering,' or compelling the state to take an action." New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie outside of the court said if the justices rule in New Jersey’s favor, “we could have bets being taken in New Jersey within two weeks of a decision by the court” (PRESSOFATLANTICCITY.com, 12/4). Kennedy said PASPA "leaves in place a state law that the state does not want, so the citizens of the State of New Jersey are bound to obey a law that the state doesn’t want but that the federal government compels the state to have. That seems commandeering." In DC, Alex Swoyer in a front-page piece notes Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Stephen Breyer "seemed skeptical of the federal government’s argument." Roberts said, "It’s a very odd way to phrase something. It’s illegal if it’s pursuant to state law. In other words, if the state law says you can do it, that’s the only situation in which it’s illegal. If the state law doesn’t say anything about it, well, feel free, you can do it." Swoyer notes roughly 20 states are backing New Jersey, and if the justices "strike down the law, 32 states would likely offer sports betting within five years" (WASHINGTON TIMES, 12/5).
LOOKING TO REPEAL: ESPN.com's David Purdum noted shortly after oral arguments, U.S. Rep. Frank Pallone (D-N.J.) announced that he would introduce a bill that "aims to repeal the federal ban on sports betting." Pallone's bill, the Gaming Accountability and Modernization Enhancement Act or GAME Act, "would allow states to legalize sports betting and online gambling, if appropriate consumer protections are in place" (ESPN.com, 12/4).
NBA READY TO POUNCE: ESPN’s Brian Windhorst noted NBA Commissioner Adam Silver has come out in favor of legalizing sports betting, but he “doesn’t want New Jersey to win." Silver "wants to change the federal laws so there’s a uniform policy across the nation.” He has been "preparing for the NBA to profit off expanded gambling for several years," including entering the league into an estimated $250M deal to "provide data to Sportradar, a European company that sells services to sportsbooks." Meanwhile, the NBA's jersey patches "are ideal for casinos to buy in the future." This comes as "other leagues have stayed on the sidelines." NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell "remains against legalized sports betting” ("OTL," ESPN, 12/4). CNBC's Scott Wapner noted experts said that if sports betting is legalized, the NBA, "because of the steps they've already taken, are the best to capitalize" ("Fast Money Halftime Report," CNBC, 12/4).
