In December 2017, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments on whether or not to overturn the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (PASPA). As we wait in limbo for the ruling to arrive sometime this spring, experts in the field are making arguments and predictions for how the so-called New Jersey sports betting case might play out. In this post, we’ve rounded up some of the smartest and most interesting takes on the topic:
Let’s start with the take closest to the source. Writing for SCOTUSblog, Amy Howe shares courtroom illustrations and summarizes the general attitude in the courtroom during the oral arguments. Based on her eyewitness account, “New Jersey seemed to find a more sympathetic audience in the justices” than it has in other courtrooms during its prior attempts to overturn PASPA. Read her full report for more details about the arguments as they happened.
Above The Law, a blog by and for lawyers, assumes its readers are well-versed in law and therefore offers one of the most high-level analyses of the arguments. Their play-by-play notes that United States Deputy Solicitor General Jeffrey B. Wall has now been tasked with defending both PASPA and Trump’s travel ban: two positions that are generally unfavorable with the majority of Supreme Court justices.
On the flipside, Ryan Prete writing for Bloomberg suggests that even if New Jersey does win the case, they will not reap the benefits legislators are hoping for. Pointing to fantasy sports leagues as an example, he cautions states from over-taxing sports betting so heavily that would-be-players are scared away from placing a bet before it is even legalized.
In a three-part series, Ryan Rodenberg for Legal Sports Report dispels commonly held misperceptions about what PASPA currently does and what exactly New Jersey is hoping the Supreme Court will overturn. For readers who are confused about the terminology of PASPA (and it is certainly obtuse), this primer explains what the act really does.