February 21, 2020

February 20, 2020

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

February 19, 2020

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

February 18, 2020

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

Supreme Court Opens Door to Legalized Sports Betting

On May 14, the United States Supreme Court struck down a federal law that effectively prohibited states from legalizing sports betting. The Court’s decision breaks Nevada’s monopoly on sports betting and will empower state legislatures throughout the country to authorize sports books.

In Murphy v. NCAA, the Court, in an opinion authored by Justice Alito, ruled that the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (“PASPA”), which barred states from “authoriz[ing]” betting schemes on “competitive games in which amateur or professional athletes participate,” violated the anti-commandeering principle of the Tenth Amendment. 

After New Jersey voters overwhelmingly supported the legalization of sports betting in a non-binding 2011 referendum, the state legislature enacted a law authorizing sports betting at racetracks and casinos. In 2012, the MLB, NHL, NBA, NFL, and the NCAA, later joined by the Department of Justice, sued New Jersey under PASPA to enjoin the state law. In 2013, the New Jersey District Court entered an injunction, which the Third Circuit upheld. In 2014, the Supreme Court refused to hear the case.

The New Jersey senate then revised the law. Instead of affirmatively authorizing sports betting, the new law simply repealed the prior-existing state ban. Then-Governor Christie signed the legislation in the fall of 2014, and in November 2014, the five sports leagues filed another lawsuit to enjoin the New Jersey law. Again, the District Court and Third Circuit ruled in favor of the leagues and found that the revised legislation violated PASPA.

However, once the case reached the Supreme Court, Justice Alito observed that PASPA forbade states from repealing any then-existing bans on the sports betting, freezing the status quo as it existed in 1992, when only Nevada law comprehensively authorized sports betting and sports books (three other states – Oregon, Delaware, and Montana – permitted limited sports “lotteries”). The Court held that PASPA “unequivocally dictates what a state legislature may and may not do” and the Court invalidated it as an unconstitutional attempt to “issue direct orders to state legislatures.” 

The effects of the Court’s opinion are seismic. William Hill plans to open a sports book at the Monmouth Park racetrack in Oceanport, New Jersey by Memorial Day. Other states, including Mississippi, Pennsylvania, Washington, and West Virginia appear poised to enact similar laws in the coming weeks and months. Still others will undoubtedly follow.

Uncertainties do remain. Justice Alito’s opinion notes that the decision to legalize sports betting is “an important policy choice” that is not for the Court to make. Rather, “Congress can regulate sports gambling directly...” Senator Orrin Hatch has already announced plans to introduce federal legislation that would establish superseding regulations for the nascent sports book industry. Further, the Court’s invalidation of PASPA does not affect existing federal restrictions on interstate and internet sports betting, including the Federal Wire Act. However, Justice Alito’s opinion cryptically notes in dicta that the Federal Wire Act and other similar federal laws, “apply only if the underlying gambling is illegal under state law.” Nevertheless, the Court’s opinion has given the states the green light to authorize intrastate sports betting, and in doing so has opened the states to a multi-billion dollar a year market.

Copyright © 2020 Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP All Rights Reserved.


About this Author

Mark N. Poovey, Womble Carlyle, Franchise lawyer, Antitrust Attorney, Litigation

Mark chairs the Firm’s Antitrust, Regulatory and Government Affairs Practice Group. Mark is a commercial litigator with special experience in antitrust, franchise law and trade regulation. Over his career, he has helped companies in a variety of industries establish and defend advanced distribution, regulatory compliance, marketing and pricing strategies. He works closely with those clients on supply chain relationships, licensing, antitrust and franchise compliance, mergers and acquisitions and intellectual property protection. His practice focuses on smoothing the path...

Jason Hicks, Antitrust Attorney, Womble Carlyle, Government Contracting Lawyer

Jason Hicks is a member of the Firm's Antitrust, Distribution and Franchise Law Practice Group. Jason has experience litigating cases and counseling clients in a wide variety of matters involving federal and state antitrust laws, franchise and dealer protection statutes, unfair and deceptive trade practices, advertising laws and regulations, industry-specific trade regulations, contract disputes, business torts, and constitutional law. Jason's practice focuses on helping clients efficiently and effectively move their products through various levels of distribution by developing strategies to avoid potential problems, complying with applicable laws and regulations, and litigating disputes that arise along the way.

Amanda Norris Ames, Antitrust Litigation, Womble Carlyle, mortgage lending legal counsel, complex civil law, foreclosure lawyer, electronic discovery attorney

Amanda is a trial attorney in Washington, D.C. and Charlottesville, Virginia, where she focuses her practice on antitrust law, financial services litigation, and complex civil litigation.

Amanda has represented financial institutions in foreclosure consumer finance litigation, mortgage lending matters, Truth in Lending Act claims, RESPA claims, financial services litigation, bankruptcy claims, and related matters in state and federal courts in Virginia and DC.  Her experience also includes litigating complex tax and bankruptcy issues, business...