\n
![\"\"](\"http:\/\/i57.tinypic.com\/fk2jqa.jpg\")
\n\tThe gripes vs the reality<\/p>\n
\n
\n\tThe gripes vs the reality<\/p>\n
\t(Bloomberg) \u2014 New Jersey is free to repeal its ban on sports betting; it just can\u2019t authorize such gambling.<\/p>\n
\tConfused? Don\u2019t be, says the Garden State in response to a National Football League bid to block wagering this weekend.<\/p>\n
\tThe state said it can lift a prohibition on betting \u2014 allowing sports wagering to take place \u2014 without running afoul of a federal statute that restricts widespread gambling on games in all but four states.<\/p>\n
\tNew Jersey said this is possible in part because of a Philadelphia federal appeals court\u2019s interpretation of the 1992 Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act, or PASPA.<\/p>\n
\tThe appeals court \u201crecognized that a federal law prohibiting states from altering their state-law restrictions on sports wagering would \u2018raise a series of constitutional problems,\u2019 so it construed PASPA\u2019s statutory language to avoid those problems,\u201d lawyers for New Jersey said in papers filed yesterday in federal court in Trenton, the state capital.<\/p>\n
\tGovernor Chris Christie signed a law Oct. 17 that would let racetracks and casinos in struggling Atlantic City offer sports betting. Monmouth Park Racetrack said that day it would take such bets as soon as Oct. 26. The NFL and three other professional sports leagues sued on Oct. 20, saying wagering would expose them to significant and irreparable harm.<\/p>\n
\tFailed Attempts<\/p>\n
\tChristie, a Republican, signed the law despite earlier failed attempts to circumvent PASPA, which bans sports betting in all but four states: Nevada, Delaware, Montana and Oregon.<\/p>\n
\tLast year, the U.S. Court of Appeals in Philadelphia ruled 2-1 that a New Jersey law legalizing gambling was pre-empted by federal law. The court, however, narrowly interpreted PASPA to permit states to repeal their existing bans on sports wagering and determine for themselves \u201cwhat, if any, \u2018the exact contours of the prohibition will be\u2019,\u201d New Jersey said in its filing.<\/p>\n
\tThe court held \u201cthat there is no \u2018equivalence\u2019 between \u2018repeal and authorization\u2019 and that a repeal of prohibitions on sports wagering would not \u2018authorize by law\u2019 that activity,\u201d according to the filing.<\/p>\n
\tThe bottom line: New Jersey\u2019s new legislation effects a partial repeal of pre-existing prohibitions. That repeal is \u201centirely self-executing,\u201d which means the state needs to do nothing else to permit wagering to occur legally, according to the filing.<\/p>\n
\tThe case is National Collegiate Athletic Association v. Christie, 14-cv-06450, U.S. District Court, District of New Jersey (Trenton).<\/p>\n
Posted by:<\/strong> Skinny on October 25, 2014, 5:32 pm<\/p>\n \tBelow is the latest as of: Oct 25, 2014 12:01 AM ET<\/p>\nThe above article is dated: Oct 23, 2014 6:51 PM ET<\/p>\n