Details On New Jersey's New Shot At Sports Betting ; Let's Hope The Court Gets It Right This Time

Search

hacheman@therx.com
Staff member
Joined
Jan 2, 2002
Messages
139,222
Tokens
New Life For New Jersey Sports Betting Case: Rehearing Granted By Court

Dustin Gouker, October 14, 201

The U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals has granted an en banc rehearing in the New Jersey sports betting case, breathing new life into the possibility of legalized and regulated wagering on games in the state.


The sports betting rehearing will take place

Sports and gaming attorney Daniel Wallach broke the news on Twitter.
You an read the court’s order for the rehearing here:
A majority of the active judges having voted for rehearing en banc in the above captioned cases, it is ordered that the petitions for rehearing are GRANTED. The Clerk of this Court shall list the case for rehearing en banc at the convenience of the Court. The opinion and judgment entered August 25, 2015 are hereby vacated.

All active justices in the Third Circuit will now hear the case, as part of the en banc rehearing.
Granting of an en banc hearing is obviously a positive development for the state in its quest to allow sports betting. A majority of active judges had to grant the request, so is safe to infer that a number of them have questions about the case.
En banc hearings are generally very rare:


Daniel Wallach @WALLACHLEGAL

This is the third rehearing grant by the Third Circuit in the last six weeks. Last year only one was granted.
10:13 AM - 14 Oct 2015 · Aventura, FL, United States


The backstory of the New Jersey sports betting case

The decision comes after New Jersey lost its appeal in the court to offer sports betting in August, in a 2-1 decision. New Jersey had requested an “en banc” rehearing, in which all the active justices would have been called upon to consider the case.
That request was not initially dismissed, as the court asked for the plaintiffs in the case — themajor professional sports leagues in the U.S. along with the Department of Justice and the NCAA — to respond to New Jersey’s petition. In their response, the NFL and the other leagues noted it believed there was no conflict to address in the wake of a dissenting opinion on the original appeal.
In 2014, New Jersey had passed a law that would allow sports betting to take place at its brick-and-mortar gaming establishments. The leagues then banded together to challenge the law in court and prevent it from going into effect.


Reaction to the rehearing decision

Congressmen Frank Pallone and Frank LoBiondo made a joint statement on Wednesday:
“We are glad that the ruling – which robbed New Jersey of the opportunity to benefit from the billion-dollar sports betting industry – will be reconsidered and heard by the full court. Not only do the citizens of New Jersey overwhelmingly support legalized sports betting and the revenue that would come to the state with it, but existing federal law picks winners and losers, and is unconstitutional and arbitrary. Several states can already operate sports betting, but New Jersey has been shut out despite the will of our citizens. We remain committed to seeing sports betting become legal in New Jersey, and this reconsideration is a positive and important development.”


State Sen. Raymond Lesniak offered the following to ESPN:
“It’s huge,” Lesniak said. “Chances are, they wouldn’t have vacated the ruling if they were only going to later on confirm it.”


What’s next for the rehearing?

The news of the rehearing brings up lots of questions, some of which we won’t have answers to immediately.


When will the rehearing take place?

There is no schedule, yet, for oral arguments in the rehearing, although it is likely not imminent.
Wallach guessed the hearing would take place in December or January. How long it would take the justices to return a verdict is also an open question.


What is New Jersey’s argument in the rehearing?

New Jersey appears to have been granted the rehearing based on the justices disagreeing on the point of law.
Before passing a law authorizing sports in the state — which is the case currently in front of the Third Circuit — New Jersey originally argued that the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (PASPA) was unconstitutional and lost. PASPA is the federal law thatprevents sports betting throughout most of the U.S. — Nevada, Oregon, Delaware and Montana are the only exceptions to that law.

Judge Julio Fuentes, who sided with the majority in the original sports betting case that New Jersey lost, wrote a dissenting opinion in the 2-1 defeat of the current case. The conflict between the two rulings is likely at the core of what the court wants to address.


What are the odds of New Jersey prevailing?

Clearly New Jersey has better than absolutely no chance, but taking the pulse of the entire court will be difficult to do until arguments are heard.

The two judges who sided with the leagues — Marjorie Rendell and Maryanne Trump Barrywere not able to vote on whether the en banc hearing would take place. However, they have chosen to sit on the en banc panel, according to the order for the rehearing. One would assume those votes would go against New Jersey.


If New Jersey wins, can you immediately start placing bets?

State Sen. Raymond Lesniak, the sponsor of the original bill that became law, predicted New Jersey residents would be able to be able to wager by February of 2016. The assumption that New Jersey will prevail in the rehearing appears to be a bit premature.


Senator Ray Lesniak @SenatorLesniak

YES! 3rd circuit vacates ruling v my sports betting bill expect sports betting in AC & Monmouth Racetrack by Super Bowl
10:11 AM - 14 Oct 2015




But theoretically, yes, a victory in the case for New Jersey could mean sports bets could be taken immediately, although that’s not a given (see the next entry).
Sports bets, under the law, could be taken at Atlantic City casinos and racetracks in the state.


When a verdict is reached, is that the end of the case?

No matter what the outcome of the rehearing is, there is still the possibility of a Supreme Court appeal by either site. Given the dispute in the Third Circuit over this case, that would appear to have a non-zero chance of happening.
Should New Jersey’s opponents lose, they may also ask the Supreme Court to stay the Third Circuit’s ruling, which would stop sports betting from happening until the SC could consider the matter further.



 

Banned
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
15,948
Tokens
Sen Lesniak has been vowing to bet on the Superbowl since NJ 1st started this a few years ago. I hope this time he gets the chance, but in the meantime, I hope his Heritage account is locked and loaded so he can do so.
 

hacheman@therx.com
Staff member
Joined
Jan 2, 2002
Messages
139,222
Tokens
Meet your new New Jersey sports betting panel of judges

POSTED ON WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 14, 2015 4:48 PM
by John Brennan

It has only happened five times in the last two years, but the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals today added the multi-year sports betting saga to its rare list of cases that get the “en banc” treatment.

Basically, that means the full complement of active Circuit judges all will hear the case – well, it’s a little more complicated than that.
There currently are 12 active judges (also 11 “senior judges,” sort of an emeritus status). Of those 12, three – including the court’s Chief Judge, Theodore McKee – recused themselves for unspecified reasons.

That leaves nine – plus the affirming judges from the August ruling that has been vacated, senior judges Maryanne Trump Barry and Marjorie Rendell. So there will be 11 (the dissenting judge, Julio Fuentes, is on the active roster).

They are, in order of seniority among active judges, with age* and which President nominated them and when:

Marjorie Rendell, 68, Bill Clinton, 1997 (sided with leagues in second ruling; assumed senior status July 2015)
Maryanne Trump Barry, 78, Bill Clinton, 1999 (sided with leagues in second ruling; assumed senior status June 2011)
Thomas Ambro, 66, Bill Clinton, 1999
Julio Fuentes, 69, Bill Clinton, 1999 (sided with leagues in first ruling and with state in second ruling)
D. Brooks Smith, 64, George W. Bush, 2001
D. Michael Fisher, 71, George W. Bush, 2003 (sided with leagues in first ruling. also once ran for Governor against Rendell’s husband, Ed, and lost)
Kent Jordan, 58, George W. Bush, 2006
Thomas Hardiman, 50, George W. Bush, 2007
Joseph Greenaway, 58, Barack Obama, 2009
Thomas Vanaskie, 62, Barack Obama, 2009 (sided with state in first ruling, re commandeering but not unequal sovereignty)
Cheryl Ann Krause, 47, Barack Obama, 2014
So eight men, three women
4 Clinton, 4 Bush, 3 Obama appointees – so 7 Democratic and 4 Republican appointees

Average age is 63

* – these are the ages all will be on Dec. 31; birthdays are not listed on the court website.
 

hacheman@therx.com
Staff member
Joined
Jan 2, 2002
Messages
139,222
Tokens
The ages on some of these judges are ridiculous & probably safe to say some are so old fashioned that there is no changing their mind on the subject.



Maryanne Trump Barry 78yrs old & ruled against NJ last time.

How in the world does she have a clue on how times have changed & what's for the better?
 

hacheman@therx.com
Staff member
Joined
Jan 2, 2002
Messages
139,222
Tokens
[h=3]Appeals court agrees to reconsider case to legalize sports betting in New Jersey[/h]14 October 2015

By Gary Trask

A federal appeals court threw proponents of legalized sports betting a lifeline on Wednesday when the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia voted to vacate an August ruling that went against New Jersey's efforts to allow wagering on college and professional sports in casinos and at racetracks.

Today's development probably won't clear the path for heading to the counter and placing wagers on your favorite NFL teams this season, but noted sports and gaming attorney Daniel Wallach told Casino City today that it's a "distinct possibility" that day will come by the end of 2016.

"This isn't about legalizing sports betting in New Jersey or nationally in time for this year's Super Bowl; it's about the long term," said Wallach, an attorney with Becker & Poliakoff in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. "And we have taken a huge step in that direction with today's developments."

On Aug. 25, a three-judge panel upheld a lower court ruling that voided state legislation on sports gambling in the Garden State in a 2-to-1 decision, claiming the state's quest to legalize sports betting violated the federal Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act, which passed in 1992 and bans sports betting in all but four states: Nevada, Delaware, Montana and Oregon.

But today, a "majority of the active judges" voted for a "rehearing en banc," which Jeff Ifrah, founding partner of Ifrah Law in Washington, D.C., said is the equivalent of the New Jersey casinos and racetracks "completing a Hail Mary pass."

"It's a huge development and huge boost for the move to legalize sports betting," said Ifrah, who publishes the blog IfrahOniGaming.com. "When you look at why the court may have agreed to a rehearing, you have to think they're doing it in order to reverse it. Sure, a dismissal is possible, but that's not my immediate instinct. A majority of the active judges had to grant this request, so it's obvious they have some questions. That's a positive sign."

Wallach said he was not surprised by today's news, explaining, "We had two decisions in direct and explicit conflict with each other. It had all of the boxes checked for a rehearing."

So where does the case go from here? Wallach predicts we are about to enter an "elongated phase" in which three key events will take place in the "next four to six months, or longer."
First, both parties will file supplemental briefs. This has not been scheduled yet, but he said it should happen in the next six to eight weeks. Next, oral arguments need to be heard; Wallach predicted that would take place between December 2015 and February 2016.

Finally, he said, a ruling will be announced, most likely in the spring.

"There could be an appeal to the Supreme Court after that, but my best guess is that if the ruling comes down in favor of New Jersey, you could be placing a bet at Monmouth Park in time for Week 1 of the 2016 NFL season. It's that close to becoming a reality."
 

Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2007
Messages
31,656
Tokens
The ages on some of these judges are ridiculous & probably safe to say some are so old fashioned that there is no changing their mind on the subject.



Maryanne Trump Barry 78yrs old & ruled against NJ last time.

How in the world does she have a clue on how times have changed & what's for the better?

That is actually Donald Trump's sister FWIW. No joke.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
1,119,982
Messages
13,575,740
Members
100,889
Latest member
junkerb
The RX is the sports betting industry's leading information portal for bonuses, picks, and sportsbook reviews. Find the best deals offered by a sportsbook in your state and browse our free picks section.FacebookTwitterInstagramContact Usforum@therx.com