Supreme Court Case on Sports Betting: American Gaming Association Submits Legal Arguments
The American Gaming Association (AGA) has entered the fray in New Jersey's ongoing sports betting case before the Supreme Court of the United States. In a filing during the October term, the AGA has weighed in, focusing on the potential benefits of a legal, regulated sports betting industry.
The AGA's brief, submitted in November 2016, emphasised issues of public policy. It highlighted the shifting attitudes in favour of legalized sports wagering and the illegal black market fostered by the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (PASPA).
The presence of known market participants can aid government and law enforcement in policing crime more effectively. Aggregate data from sports books can alert regulators to potential corruption, and legal sports books can help eliminate a black market, as demonstrated in examples such as Nevada, the United Kingdom, and Australia.
The AGA discusses the potential benefits of legal, regulated sports betting. People, it argues, will generally choose a legal, regulated market over the black market that PASPA has fostered. If successful, a legal sports-betting industry could potentially generate up to $26.6 billion in total economic impact every year.
Moreover, the taxes generated from a legal sports-betting industry could amount to $18 billion annually. Over 150,000 well-paying American jobs could be created by a legal sports-betting industry.
The AGA also makes many of the same points regarding anti-commandeering (the federal government can't force states to pass or maintain laws furthering a federal government law) and on federalism in general. The anti-commandeering doctrine is considered by New Jersey and its backers as the biggest, best shot at success in the sports betting case.
The opponent in the case is the National Collegiate Athletic Association and major professional U.S. sports leagues. The leagues' brief on the merits is due on October 17.
Notably, a coalition of 34 state attorneys general also filed an amicus brief to the Supreme Court of the United States, focusing specifically on the anti-commandeering doctrine related to states' rights to regulate sports betting without federal overreach.
The filing follows New Jersey's brief on the merits and that of the New Jersey Thoroughbred Horsemen's Association, Inc. The AGA's intervention underscores the main points in petitioners' briefs, which emphasise how PASPA tramples on states' rights, undermines state sovereignty, and specifically mandates state action – in violation of the anti-commandeering doctrine.
As the Supreme Court prepares to hear arguments in the case, the AGA's intervention adds a powerful voice to the chorus of those advocating for a legal, regulated sports betting industry in the United States.
Read also:
- visionary women of WearCheck spearheading technological advancements and catalyzing transformations
- Recognition of Exceptional Patient Care: Top Staff Honored by Medical Center Board
- A continuous command instructing an entity to halts all actions, repeated numerous times.
- Oxidative Stress in Sperm Abnormalities: Impact of Reactive Oxygen Species (ROS) on Sperm Harm
