New Jersey’s attempt to legalize sports betting -Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act

PANDORA MEDIA COMPANY
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUMMARY OF: New Jersey’s attempt to legalize sports betting
The memo is about a federal court case involving New Jersey and other five sports league. In this case, New Jersey State wanted to legalese sports betting which was only allowed to be in one state, Nevada and the initiative was opposed by the sports leagues who presented the matter to court. The Memo will, therefore, summarize the federal PASPA laws and what they do, what the New Jersey did, constitutional issues involved in the case, arguments in favor and against the Supreme Court decision in favor of New Jersey. It will also identify the proponents besides New Jersey, and the opponents of New Jersey in winning in court.
POINT 1: SUMMARY OF PAPSA LAWS
The Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act [PASPA] is a legally constituted law that defines the legal status of sports betting in the United States (Meer, 2011). It, therefore, regulates sports betting regarding states where some states are not allowed to participate in sports betting whereas some are permitted. Moreover, very few countries are permitted to participate such as Nevada. Also, the act place restrictions on different states on sports lotteries. It, therefore, allows for the establishment of legal sport betting industries only on the countries granted to so by the act. New Jersey, one of the states, in its state constitutional jurisdiction, advocated for and passed laws to allow sports betting in the country.

Its legislature decided to allow the sports betting which was opposed by other sports leagues in the United States. The action of it passing the law contributed to a court case which where it lost for the first time and was then favored by the federal supreme court. In the case, however, some constitutional issues were involved. They included favoring the New Jersey state without considering the PASPA law. Another issue was the conflict between the federal government policies and the ones for individual countries. The individual states want to act on their policies whereas some are opposed by the Federal Government thus causing inter constitutional clashes.
POINT 2: ARGUMENTS IN FAVOR AND AGAINST SUPREME COURT RULING
The Supreme Court did its ruling and favored New Jersey who won the case that was filled on them by the sporting leagues. Favoring New Jersey, was not a bad idea because, first, New Jersey is a state on its own and has its constitution and policies. It is, therefore, allowed to pass its laws in the state. Another argument supporting the favor to New Jersey is that the Supreme Court has been opposing the PAPSA Act which has affected many states in the US. Regarding the opposition of supreme courts favor to New Jersey, the Constitutional Act of PAPSA is a United States thing and should not be violated unless it is amended and modified to be in favor of some other countries. For a state to participate in sports betting, it should be approved and allowed by the PAPSA.
POINT 3: PROPONENTS AND OPPONENTS OF NEW JERSEY WINNING
New Jersey had also proponents who supported it in court including the Federal Government and the Department of Justice in the United States. The Department of Justice supported New Jersey because the PAPSA cannot allow freedom to the country states to practice sports betting which is one possible way of encouraging sports in the US. The opponents who were the sporting leagues opposed the New Jersey court basing their arguments on the PAPSA laws. It, however, could have impacts on the sporting leagues as they could not be favored by the betting industries established in New Jersey.

Reference
Meer, E. (2011). The Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (PASPA): a bad bet for the states. UNLV Gaming LJ, 2, 281.