Solicitor General to Supreme Court: New Jersey sports betting case not worth your while

John Brennan
NorthJersey
The Supreme Court has been advised by the Solicitor General that it need not necessarily take up the New Jersey sports betting case.

In a recommendation that could be a fatal blow to the hopes of backers of the legalization of sports betting in New Jersey, Acting U.S. Solicitor General Jeffrey Wall on Wednesday told the U.S. Supreme Court that there was no need for the Justices to take up the case.

Supporters found a reason to be optimistic in January when the nation's top court made the sports betting saga - which dates back to 2011 - the only case out of more than 100 that prompted it to seek advice from the Solicitor General regarding the merits of the Constitutional issues raised.

The Solicitor General is sometimes referred to as "The 10th Justice," and the Court usually adheres to the legal recommendation made to take or not take a case. The Court is expected to announce a decision to pass on the case next month.

The case involves an effort by New Jersey to allow sports betting at casinos and racetracks. The NFL and four other sports organizations want to prevent such betting in New Jersey and they have won a series of legal victories. The state was attempting to have the Supreme Court take the case. 

Acting Solicitor General Jeffrey Wall, seen here recently in another court case, has recommended to the U.S. Supreme Court that it not take up the New Jersey sports betting case.

"It’s always an uphill battle to get the Supreme Court to [accept a case], and this case was no different," said Christopher Soriano, a partner in the Philadelphia-based Duane Morris law firm and an expert on the case.

Daniel Wallach, a Fort Lauderdale-based gaming law attorney, said the Court historically has followed the lead of the Solicitor General at least 80 percent of the time. 

In his 23-page filing, Wall noted the lack of a conflicting ruling in the cases leading up to this appeal, adding that "no other Circuit has ever considered a case" related to the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (PASPA) of 1992, which banned sports betting in 46 states, including New Jersey.

The courts so far have put a roadblock in New Jersey's efforts on sports betting by upholding the federal ban.

HORSE RACING:Monmouth Park promising improved food, drink experience this summer

SPORTS BETTING:NJ Senators urge NCAA to rescind ban due to sports betting

VEGAS, BABY:Poll shows most don’t think pro sports in Las Vegas is an issue

But Wall said the federal law is constitutional because it leaves states with options for gambling.  

Voters statewide in 2011 easily passed a ballot question allowing for Las Vegas-style sports betting at state racetracks and Atlantic City casinos, challenging the constitutionality of Congress' prohibition. Two laws have been enacted to allow such betting. 

There is a ray of hope for sports betting supporters in spite of the recent track record by the top Court, Wallach said.

"This is no ordinary case, it involves states' rights, and the most difficult hurdle - getting the interest of the Court - already has been achieved," Wallach said.

The state likely will file a reply within two weeks, Wallach said. A spokesman for Gov. Chris Christie was not immediately available for comment.