Gov. Christie takes New Jersey sports betting battle to Supreme Court

A federal appeals court this summer struck down a 2014 law signed by Mr. Christie allowing sports betting at casinos and racetracks.

The state, though, refused to fold. Representing New Jersey, former U.S. Solicitor General Ted Olson — the same lawyer that Apple Inc. hired for its recent iPhone encryption showdown with the FBI — has asked the eight justices to hear the case.

A petition signed by Mr. Olson of Gibson Dunn and submitted to the high court days ago casts the rejection of New Jersey’s sports gambling law as a dangerous assault on state sovereignty.

The dispute stretches back to 2012 when New Jersey first tried to legalize sports betting with a sweeping repeal of a longstanding ban.

“

“

After that effort failed in court, New Jersey enacted a more limited repeal in 2014, applying to just casinos and racetracks, triggering another round of litigation, with the National Collegiate Athletic Association and four major sports leagues suing to block it

”

A federal judge and the Third U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed that even a partial repeal violated a 1992 law passed by Congress making it unlawful for States to “authorize by law” gambling on sports. In that appeal, Mr. Olson squared off against another high-powered lawyer, Paul Clement, who represented the NCAA.

Nevada is the only state completely exempted from the sports-wagering restriction imposed by the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act, or PASPA. Three other states — Montana, Delaware and Oregon — also secured more limited exemptions.

New Jersey is attacking PASPA as unconstitutional. The argument is based on the “anti-commandeering doctrine” under the Tenth Amendment.

“

“

Articulating that doctrine, the Supreme Court has said that Congress may not commandeer the legislative processes of the States by directly compelling them to enact and enforce a federal regulatory program

”

But Mr. Olson says that’s exactly what PASPA does. A key passage from his petition:

This federal takeover of New Jersey’s legislative apparatus is dramatic, unprecedented, and in direct conflict with this Court’s Tenth Amendment jurisprudence barring Congress from controlling how the States regulate private parties. Never before has congressional power been construed to allow the federal government to dictate whether…a State may repeal…its own state-law prohibitions on private conduct.