Five states back New Jersey'€™s Supreme Court sports betting appeal

West Virginia, Arizona, Louisiana, Mississippi and Wisconsin give support for the state’s right to decide on sports betting

Five states have backed New Jersey’s push to legalise sports betting, by submitting an amicus brief in support of the state’s appeal to the US Supreme Court.

Attorney Generals from Arizona, Louisiana, Mississippi and Wisconsin all backed the filing made by West Virginia AG Patrick Morrisey.

In it, the states argue that New Jersey should be able to repeal its laws that prohibit sports betting, arguing that blocking it from doing so raises “troubling concerns” over states’ sovereignty.

“The Third Court’s decision conflicts with a core aspect of residual sovereignty guaranteed by the Tenth Amendment, namely the right of the people to decide whether or not to retain certain powers and liberties or to delegate those powers to the states.”

The filing continued: ““In upholding the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (“PASPA”), the Third Circuit radically expanded the doctrine of federal preemption by holding that Congress may forbid the States from repealing their existing laws without affirmatively setting forth a federal regulatory or deregulatory scheme.”

The states stopped short of expressing support for sports betting however, writing: “We take no position on the wisdom of the state and federal sports wagering laws in this case.”

The new amicus brief – which the Supreme Court is expected to consider in a potential ruling on the case – follows a similar filing last week from sports law professor Ryan Rodenberg who argued that PASPA granted unconstitutional powers to pro sports leagues.

Sports lawyer Daniel Wallach said he expected at least one more amicus brief to be filed in support of New Jersey, adding that their presence would likely boost the chances of the case being heard by the Supreme Court.

“In last year’s term, more than 90% of merit cases accepted for review had amicus briefs,” he said. “Why are they so important? If other people aren’t interested in the issue, then why should the high court care?”

The Supreme Court is expected to decide whether to hear New Jersey’s case in mid-January 2017.