By Ellen Rugeley
A lawsuit filed on behalf of the Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC) and a group of plaintiffs including fighters, fans, trainers and others involved with Mixed Martial Arts (MMA) is challenging the constitutionality of the New York state law banning live professional MMA events and associated activities (the Ban). The lawsuit challenges the Ban for violating various provisions of the United States Constitution including the First Amendment, the Equal Protection Clause and the Due Process Clause.
According to the complaint, which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, the ban violates the plaintiffs’ right to equal protection of the laws, because MMA is singled out and treated differently from other similar sports events and activities. The complaint also states that the ban is irrational and arbitrary and therefore violates the due process of law.
The plaintiffs argue that MMA matches are “expressive activity” protected under the First Amendment. Robert Freeman, a partner in the Corporate Department and a member of the Sports Law Group and Technology, Media & Communications Group at Proskaeur Rose LLP, and Maureen Garde, a legal writer and attorney with the firm, recent wrote that this is the “same argument that the American Civil Liberties Union has made to protect the rights of pole dancers and erotic performance artists.”
They also compared Ultimate Fighting with Swan Lake. He notes that both involve “men leaping around on a stage,” as well as “characters with weird names.” “Swan Lake has drama and violence, so does mixed martial arts.” However, there is a difference between Swan Lake and MMA. “Swan Lake is performed regularly on stages in New York State, but MMA is not.”
Barry Friedman, a constitutional law professor at New York University School of Law and co-counsel with Morrison & Foerster LLP for the plaintiffs stated, “Despite sincere legislative efforts the ban remains in place based on a flawed assessment of the sport’s supposedly ‘violent message.’ This rationale is a patent violation of the First Amendment.” Friedman has also made the comparison to explicit dancing. MMA is “martial artistry… The nature of martial arts is a lot like dancing.”
The lawsuit charges that the Ban infringes upon the rights of the fighters who want to publicly exhibit their skills as professionals and express themselves before a live audience, the rights of fans who would like to experience live professional MMA events, and the rights of those who train, publicize or otherwise advance MMA in New York.
The Ban, enacted into law in 1997, prohibits live matches of “combative sports,” but still allows for “boxing, wrestling and sparring,” as well as certain specified forms of permitted martial arts to take place. The Ban includes any sport in which the “contestants deliver, or are not forbidden by the applicable rules thereof from delivering kicks, punches or blows of any kind to the body of an opponent or opponents.”
The plaintiffs are using the following as evidence of the irrational, unconstitutional natures of the Ban.
The Ban was originally imposed when MMA was unregulated and prohibited in many others states. However, today MMA is a highly-regulated, broadly popular sport, which experts and supporting safety data verify is as safe as or safer than many sports and activities that are legal in New York.
MMA is widely available on television in New York, and live professional MMA can take place in virtually every state except New York. Many New Yorkers also lawfully train and spar in MMA.
The individual martial arts that comprise MMA, such as kickboxing, jiu-jitsu, judo, boxing and wrestling, are legal and performed live regularly in New York. It is only banned in New York when they are performed in combination, live by professionals.
The complaint also charges that the Ban unconstitutionally restricts interstate commerce. Lorenzo Fertitta, Chairman and CEO of Zuffa LLC, owner of the UFC believes that the Ban is not only an injustice to fans and performers alike, but also serves as an injustice to “the local markets that would reap tremendous economic benefits from hosting competitions.”
“Perhaps the plaintiffs will succeed in convincing the federal courts that MMA is an expressive activity entitled to the same constitutional protection as a performance of Swan Lake,” wrote Freeman and Garde.
“We believe the ban should be eliminated, and look forward to fighting live in New York,” said Fertitta.
