US Supreme Court May Consider Arguments on NJ Sports Betting Case
The US Supreme Court is planning to consider a New Jersey sports betting award dispute. The case is about the nation’s biggest sporting organizations owing money to the New Jersey Thoroughbred Horsemen’s Association.
What is the dispute?
Two years ago, the US Supreme Court delivered a historic ruling in a case pushed by the state of New Jersey, which paved the way for the legalization of sports betting in US states. Now, another New Jersey case could make its way to the top jurists. During a May 15 conference, nine Supreme Court justices will discuss whether they should hear the arguments in a case against the NCAA and the horsemen. The case also involved four major sporting leagues, including MLB, NBA, NFL.
The issue rests on the idea that the horsemen believe they are owed for not being able to run their sportsbook at Monmouth Park for almost four years. This was a time when the case was proceeding through the US court system.
New Jersey’s unique position
New Jersey passed its sports betting law in 2014 after the courts deemed a previous law as invalid. The leagues then sought an injunction that blocks New Jersey from taking bets. The leagues also put up a $3.4 million bond. The horsemen won a case in their favor in the federal appellate which ruled that the horsemen get that bond money plus interest.
The horsemen argue that the injunction brought by the leagues made them unable to take bets because of which the leagues are liable to pay them $150 in damages. This is the estimated amount the track could have earned had it remained open during the 4-year period.
The panel will hear the case if four of the nine justices agree to it. However, if the justices decline the case, it will go back to the federal district court. The two parties can also settlement an award amount between themselves.
The leagues claim that their injunction was automatically rescinded when the Supreme Court made the landmark sportsbook judgment in 2018. The horsemen continue to claim that the league’s action was taken in bad faith because they will be damaged because of expanded legalized sports betting.