United States: Sports Wagering In New Jersey Suffers Another Setback


A three-judge Third Circuit panel has affirmed an earlier District Court ruling that struck down New Jersey's Sports Wagering Law as in conflict with the federal Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act ("PASPA"). The Sports Wagering Law permitted New Jersey authorities to license casinos and racetracks to conduct sports wagering. In contrast, PASPA prohibits states (except for Nevada, and lotteries in Delaware and Oregon) from licensing or authorizing sports wagering.

Major League Baseball, the NBA, NCAA, NFL, and NHL ("Leagues") initiated proceedings before the District Court by filing a lawsuit against various New Jersey state officials and entities, arguing that the Sports Wagering Law illegally conflicted with PASPA. The District Court agreed, and entered judgment invalidating the Sports Wagering Law. The New Jersey defendants appealed to the Third Circuit.

On appeal, the Third Circuit held that "the Sports Wagering Law is precisely what PASPA says the states may not do—a purported authorization of sports wagering. It is therefore invalidated by PASPA." The Court continued that the Sports Wagering Law "stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress, and accordingly conflicts with PASPA and is preempted." Finally, the Court stated that it is up to Congress to either amend PASPA to permit New Jersey to authorize sports wagering or to "undo PASPA altogether," but absent such Congressional action, "it is not our place to usurp Congress' role simply because PASPA may have become an unpopular law."

One judge in the panel dissented, stating that PASPA's sports wagering ban is an impermissible requirement upon the states because PASPA was not enacted pursuant to any regulatory or deregulatory scheme.

The Third Circuit's Rulings

A. The Leagues Proved Actual Harm

As an initial matter, the Third Circuit held that the Leagues had standing (i.e., the right) to bring the case. The issue turned on whether the Sports Wagering Law causes the Leagues an actual injury. The Court held that the Leagues established injury because "the reputational harm that results from increasingly associating the Leagues' games with gambling is fairly intuitive," pointing to findings of fact made by Congress, fan and public polling, and instances of "game-rigging."

B. PASPA is within Congress' Authority

The Third Circuit then turned to the issue of whether PASPA's ban on sports wagering is within Congress authority under the Commerce Clause. The Commerce Clause provides Congress with the ability to pass laws on issues that substantially affect interstate commerce. Relying upon economic evidence presented by the parties, the Court held that sports wagering would substantially affect interstate commerce, because wagering and sports—both multibillion dollar pursuits—are national economic activities that "plainly transcend state boundaries and affect a fundamentally national industry." The Court then held that PASPA did not unconstitutionally regulate purely local activities (a wager between family members on a local football game), because PASPA concerns only "schemes" carried out "pursuant to law or compact," which would not include private, small-scale wagering.

The Court noted that this case presents a scenario different than where the Supreme Court held that the Affordable Care Act's mandate violated the Commerce Clause, in National Federation of Independent Businesses v. Sebelius, 132 S. Ct. 2566 (2012), because in Sebelius the method chosen to regulate was beyond Congress' power. Here, the Court held that PASPA's method of regulation, banning an activity altogether, "is neither novel nor problematic." Therefore, the Court held that PASPA is within Congress power to regulate matters, such as sports wagering, that substantially affect interstate commerce.

C. PASPA Does Not Impermissibly Commandeer the States

After deciding that Congress has the authority to regulate sports wagering, the Third Circuit turned to whether PASPA's language prohibiting states from authorizing sports wagering violates the "anti-commandeering principle", which bars Congress from requiring states to enact and enforce a federal regulatory system. In holding that PASPA did not violate anti-commandeering principles, the Court noted that PASPA "simply operated to invalidate contrary state laws." The Court stated that to accept the position that New Jersey's sovereignty is violated when it is precluded from enacting a policy different than that set forth by federal law, "would be revolutionary."

The Court likened this situation to two cases where the Supreme Court upheld prohibitions on state action that effectively invalidated the states' laws, in South Carolina v. Baker, 485 U.S. 505 (1988) and Reno v. Condon, 528 U.S. 141 (2000). Thus, here the Court held that because PASPA merely prohibits states from authorizing sports wagering, as opposed to requiring state action, PASPA does not run afoul of anti-commandeering principles, stating that "it is hard to see how Congress can 'commandeer' a state, or how it can be found to regulate how a state regulates, if it does not require it to do anything at all."

The Court held that this case was unlike the only two cases where the Supreme Court has struck down laws as being commandeering, New York v. U.S., 505 U.S. 144 (1992) and Printz v. U.S., 521 U.S. 898 (1997), because in each of those cases the challenged laws impermissibly "required" or "coerced" the states to take affirmative acts. The Court further noted that PASPA does not prohibit states from repealing existing bans on sports wagering, but instead only prohibits states from enacting laws authorizing sports wagering.1

D. Nevada Exception Does Not Violate Equal Sovereignty of the States

Finally, the Third Circuit addressed whether PASPA violates the equal sovereignty of the states by permitting Nevada to maintain state-sponsored sports wagering. In holding that the Nevada exception does not violate equal sovereignty, the Court stated that "matters of national concern and finding national solutions will necessarily affect states differently." The Court stated that this case is dissimilar to the two cases relied upon by the New Jersey Defendants, Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District Number One v. Holder, 557 U.S. 193 (2009) and Shelby County, Alabama v. Holder, 133 S. Ct. 2612 (2013), both of which sought to invalidate Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, because there is nothing in those cases "to indicate that the equal sovereignty principle is meant to apply with the same force outside the context of 'sensitive areas of state and local policymaking,'" such as voting rights. The Court further noted that PAPSA's purpose is not to entirely eliminate sports wagering, but to stop the spread of state-sanctioned sports wagering, and therefore, regulating states in which sports-wagering already existed (Nevada) would have been irrational.

E. The Dissent

The dissent disagreed with the majority on the issue of whether PASPA violates anti-commandeering principles. Relying upon the New York and Printz decisions that the majority found to be inapplicable, the dissent stated that by prohibiting states from authorizing sports wagering, PASPA impermissibly dictates the manner in which states must regulate interstate commerce, and that such regulation should instead be enacted through the federal government. Contrary the majority's distinction between requiring a state to act and merely prohibiting a state from acting, the dissent stated that whether "as a command to engage in specific action or as a prohibition against specific action, the federal government's interference with a state's sovereign autonomy is the same," and is impermissible. The dissent concluded that if the federal government wants to prohibit certain actions by the states, it must provide a federal solution or incentivize states to regulate or comply with federal standards. The problem here, the dissent said, is that there is no federal scheme regulating sports wagering, instead PASPA impermissibly requires states to do such regulating for the federal government.

F. The Remaining Options for the New Jersey Defendants

The New Jersey defendants could petition the Third Circuit for a rehearing en banc. According to the Third Circuit Bar Association's Practice Guide, petitions for reargument are "very rare" and granted only in "exceptional circumstances." Of all the cases decided by the Third Circuit in 2011, only three were granted a rehearing. The existence of a dissent in this case increases the chances of rehearing, as rehearing is very rarely granted absent a dissenting opinion. A petition for rehearing must specify: (a) points of law that the panel overlooked or misapprehended that affected the outcome of the appeal; (b) the effect a new precedential decision or statute; or (c) the issue of exceptional importance that calls out for en banc attention. Specifically in a petition for a hearing en banc, the filing party must certify that, to its best judgment, the panel's decision is contrary to Third Circuit or Supreme Court precedent, or involves a question of exceptional importance. Because the United States is a party to this matter, any petition for rehearing must be filed within 45 days of entry of judgment (where the United States is not a party, the petition must be filed within 14 days).

Alternatively, the New Jersey Defendants could petition the Supreme Court of the United States to hear an appeal of this decision, which petition must be filed within 90 days of entry of a final order in the Third Circuit. Appeal to the Supreme Court is not a right. Rather, a party must petition the Court for a writ of certiorari (the Court grants certiorari in less than 4% of petitions). Certiorari is granted only for "compelling reasons," which include: (a) the appeals court entered a decision that conflicts with the decision of another appeals court on the same important matter; has decided an important federal question in a way that conflicts with a decision by a state court of last resort; or has so far departed from the accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings as to call for an exercise of the Supreme Court's supervisory power; or (b) an appeals court has decided an important question of federal law that has not been, but should be settled, or has decided an important federal question in a way that conflicts with Supreme Court decisions.

* * *

Although the Third Circuit's decision lengthens the odds against the Sports Wagering Law, the cause is by no means lost. With many states broadening the scope of permissible wagering within their boundaries, with the significant amount of money wagered on sporting events throughout the United States, and with significant public interest in this issue, this matter calls out for a final judicial determination by the Supreme Court. If certiorari is granted, recent Supreme Court precedent provides reason for cautious optimism that the Third Circuit's decision could be overturned.

Presented with the proper legal and factual situations, the Supreme Court has demonstrated that it is wiling to hold that laws or portions of laws violate the Commerce Clause (the Affordable Care Act in Sebelius) and the equal sovereignty of states (the Voting Rights Act in Shelby and Northwest Austin). Further, as discussed in the dissent, although New York and Printz are the only two cases where the Supreme Court has struck down laws as anti-commandeering, they are nevertheless Supreme Court precedent and a strong argument can be made here that PASPA impermissibly requires states to take action. New Jersey has every reason to seek an appeal before the Supreme Court.


1 In discussing the anti-commandeering principal, the majority opinion did not address a similar, though distinct, argument which is uniquely applicable to the State of New Jersey: whether Congress, in expressly acknowledging in PASPA (28 U.S.C. § 3704(a)(3)) that the State of New Jersey had a legitimate interest in potentially authorizing sports wagering, nonetheless included an impermissible command to the New Jersey legislature; if New Jersey wants to authorize and regulate sports wagering, do so within one year and do so only in Atlantic City's casinos (not, for example, in race tracks as the Sports Wagering Law contemplates). Congress, thus, arguably not only directed New Jersey when to act, but specifically how to act in enforcing Congress' policy that the growth of sports wagering be limited. As the dissent pointed out, Congress did not enact a federal prohibition on sports wagering but, instead, directed the states to regulate sports wagering in a particular fashion and, in the case of New Jersey, specifically when and how New Jersey could regulate sports wagering, or forever lose the sovereign authority to do so. Unfortunately, the dissent also failed to address whether Congress exceeded its authority by commanding New Jersey to regulate sports wagering in a specific time and fashion rather than imposing a direct federal prohibition.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Eric G. Fikry
Dennis M.P. Ehling
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Proskauer Rose LLP
Klein Moynihan Turco LLP
Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Proskauer Rose LLP
Klein Moynihan Turco LLP
Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions