Oral Argument Preview for Landmark Supreme Court Sports Betting Case
CASE strongly promotes federalism and the right of individuals within their states to have the sovereignty to determine what laws work best for them, without unnecessary federal intrusion. For this reason, we stand against PASPA, the federal law that bans all but four states from setting their own laws on sports betting, which further needlessly criminalizes a common and popular pastime, strains law enforcement and helps line the pockets of organized crime. For a sound preview of the oral arguments tomorrow at the Supreme Court, and the ramifications of the Court’s decision beyond sports betting alone, please see article below.
Courtesy of SportsHandle.com:
With oral arguments in Christie v NCAA (aka the Supreme Court Sports Betting Case) now just 24 hours away, let’s take stock of everything we now know, and what we may reasonably expect in the Supreme Court on Monday when New Jersey takes on the NCAA and major pro sports leagues (“Leagues”) over legal sports betting.
That task means synthesizing everything (briefly): The facts of the case(s) and its eight-year history; all the briefs including the various amicus briefs; the underlying 1992 federal law at issue that effectively ban sports betting outside Nevada, the Professional and Amateur Sports Betting Act (“PASPA”). We also consider the various expert analyses that we’ve published, relevant Supreme Court precedents, the bench’s composition, public opinion, the Leagues’ actions and public showing of support for legalized sports betting, and Justices’ possible consideration of such, and more.
New Jersey’s Supreme Court Sports Betting Case: Oral Argument Preview, Main Points, What to Watch For, And a Prediction About the Outcome
Thinking long and hard and often about it, I think the court is going to ultimately issue a favorable decision for New Jersey… and I think it’s just a matter of how they get there.
First things first, remember the before the high court accepted the case, it asked for a CVSG, or “Called for the View of the Solicitor General.” And the the SG’s office suggested that the court not take up the case. Most often the court listens to the SG’s recommendation, but here it did not.
That’s a big signal that the Justices believe that PASPA — the way it operates and its wider implication for the interplay between federal and states’ rights — has much wider importance. Indeed, 20 others states signed an amicus brief supporting New Jersey on the basis that PASPA tramples on states rights. That’s of grave concern to the other states, including Utah, which doesn’t have a lottery and doesn’t give a damn about sports betting.
Thus, this case really isn’t about sports betting. It’s about states rights and federalism.
So now we turn to what the veteran litigators — Rudy Telscher and Glen D. Nager — recently told SportsHandle about arguing a case before the Supreme Court. Both of them emphasized that a good attorney and orator has “lived” the case, know the most salient points inside and out, and will be prepared for almost any question from anywhere on the bench. Telscher and Nager also agreed that an attorney should focus on making three central points, and tactfully return to them while making sure to soundly respond to what the Justices ask.
READ FULL ARTICLE HERE: