By Thomas Quigley
March Madness may be on the horizon but New Jersey and Governor Chris Christie will not be the Cinderella this year. On the last day of February, United States District Court Judge for the District of New Jersey, Michael Shipp, granted the motion for summary judgment against defendants New Jersey and Governor Christie. Judge Shipp also permanently enjoined the defendants from being involved in sports gambling in any conceivable way, shape or form, effectively striking down New Jersey’s recently enacted Sports Wagering Law.
Once the NCAA and all the major sports leagues — NBA, NFL, MLB, NHL — who were later joined by the United States Department of Justice, brought the suit against Governor Christie and New Jersey’s Sports Wagering Law, the defendants were always going to be the 16 seed in attempting to legalize sports gambling, having to go against the 1 seed of the Leagues, who also had congress and judicial precedent on their team.
Governor Christie initially challenged the plaintiffs’ standing in the suit but Judge Shipp ruled in December of 2012 that the Leagues did in fact have standing as they could show injury-in-fact and causation of sports gambling and redressibility from New Jersey’s law being struck down. After hearing oral arguments on the constitutionality of the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act — or “PASPA” (28 U.S.C. § 3701, et seq), congress’ statute that banned sports gambling except for a few exceptions — in January of this year, and taking briefs from each side, Judge Shipp ruled that PASPA does not violate the United States Constitution and that Congress acted within its power in enacting the statute. Further, Judge Shipp stated, because “New Jersey is in clear violation of a federal statute” the Leagues were entitled to a permanent injunction. (Judge Shipp’s opinion at 43).
The Court saw fit to rule on the summary judgment motions by each party as there were no material facts at issue, solely the question regarding the legality of New Jersey’s Sports Wagering Law and PASPA. Judge Shipp looked to whether or not PASPA is constitutional: “As drafted, the two statutory regimes cannot co-exist. Accordingly, if PASPA is held to be constitutional, then the Sports Wagering Law must be sticken as preempted by the Supremacy Clause. Conversely, if this Court finds PASPA unconstitutional, it must be invalidated and the New Jersey Sports Wagering Law may be implemented.” (Id. at 7). Governor Christie and the defendants primarily alleged that PASPA violates the Commerce Clause, the Tenth Amendment, the Due Process Clause and Equal Protection, and the Equal Footing Doctrine. The Court looked at these four allegations in turn and found all four to be unconvincing.
With regards to the Commerce Clause, the defendants “concede that Congress has the authority to regulate gambling pursuant to its Commerce Clause Powers.” (Id. at 12). Just needing to satisfy rational basis review, the Court found PASPA constitutional, noting that the, “Senate Judiciary Committee has concluded that sports gambling is a ‘national problem’ that in the absence of federal legislation would spread throughout the country unabashedly.” (Id. at 12). The defendants did take issue with PASPA’s grandfathering in clause which allows several states who already employed sports gambling before PASPA’s enactment in the early 1990s, to continue doing so. Oregon, Nevada, Delaware, and Montana received the PASPA exceptions, while New Jersey was given the opportunity to instill sports gambling in its state in the first year of PASPA but declined to do so. The Court cited several other instances where “grandfathering in” was permissible and noted that the states had a reasonable reliance on the continuance of sports gambling. Further, the Court noted it could be the goal of PASPA not to eliminate sports gambling altogether but to stop and control the spread of it.
The defendants additionally allege that PASPA is commandeering the States, though the court — after a lengthy review — ruled that there was no affirmative action required by the states and thus it did not violate this provision of the commerce clause.
The Court used similar reasoning when addressing the Tenth Amendment issue and ultimately decided that, “[c]ongress has chosen through PASPA to limit the geographic localities in which sports wagering is lawful. It does no more or less. The Court, therefore, cannot conclude that PASPA usurps State sovereignty.” (Id. at 32). The Court then added that, “PASPA is controlling and influencing the spread of legalized sports wagering, not New Jersey.” (Id. at 34).
The defendants also made a Due Process and Equal Protection claim as well as an Equal Footing claim. In short they claimed that New Jersey is not being treated like other states. Judge Shipp dismissed both these claims quickly stating that States are not people for the purposes of the Fifth Amendment where Due Process and Equal Protection fall and even if there was a right being impinged upon the statute, PASPA, would receive rational basis scrutiny and Congress’ legitimate aim of curtailing sports gambling is rationally related to the provisions in PASPA. Judge Shipp dismissed the Equal Footing doctrine’s application in this case as it was intended to be used for new states entering the Union.
Judge Shipp’s ruling is an important win for the Leagues as they battle the ever changing perception of legitimacy in their games and the growing popularity of sports gambling as a companion for sports viewing.
