The Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act of 1992 (Pub.L. 102–559), also known as PASPA or the Bradley Act, is a judicially-overturned law that was meant to define the legal status of sports betting throughout the United States. This act effectively outlawed sports betting nationwide, excluding a few states. Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act of 1992 Long title An Act. Despite NCAA regulations prohibiting sports wagering for money, 26 percent of male student-athletes report doing just that, with 8 percent gambling on sports at least monthly. Of particular concern is the culture surrounding golf, where on-course wagering is considered a normative aspect of the experience.
- Sports Gambling Wikipedia
- Sports Gambling Wiki
- Sports Gambling Wiki
- Online Sports Gambling Wikipedia
- Sports Gambling Wikipedia
| Long title | An Act to prohibit sports gambling under State law, and for other purposes. |
|---|---|
| Acronyms(colloquial) | PASPA |
| Nicknames | Bradley Act |
| Enacted by | the 102nd United States Congress |
| Effective | October 28, 1992 |
| Citations | |
| Public law | 102-559 |
| Statutes at Large | 106 Stat.4227 |
| Codification | |
| Titles amended | 28 U.S.C.: Judiciary and Judicial Procedure |
| U.S.C. sections created | 28 U.S.C.ch. 178 § 3701 et seq. |
| Legislative history | |
| |
| United States Supreme Court cases | |
| Struck down by U.S. Supreme Court in Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Association on May 14, 2018 |
The Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act of 1992 (Pub.L.102–559), also known as PASPA or the Bradley Act, is a judicially-overturned law that was meant to define the legal status of sports betting throughout the United States. This act effectively outlawed sports betting nationwide, excluding a few states.
The sports lotteries conducted in Oregon, Delaware, and Montana were exempt, as well as the licensed sports pools in Nevada[1]. In addition, Congress provided a one-year window of opportunity from the effective date of PASPA (January 1, 1993) for states which operated licensed casino gaming for the previous ten-year period to pass laws permitting sports wagering. The latter exception was clearly crafted with New Jersey in mind. However, New Jersey failed to take advantage of this opportunity. Excluded from the reach of PASPA are jai alai, as well as parimutuelhorse and dog racing.
In a May 2018 decision in Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that PASPA conflicts with the Tenth Amendment.
History[edit]
On June 26, 1991, the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Patents, Copyrights and Trademarks held public hearings on sports gambling. It found '(s)ports gambling is a national problem. The harms it inflicts are felt beyond the borders of those States that sanction it.' David Stern, the then-commissioner for the National Basketball Association, testified that 'The interstate ramifications of sports betting are a compelling reason for federal legislation.' In light of these findings, Congress exercised its authority under the Commerce Clause to enact Senate Bill 474 Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (PASPA) in 1992, codified at 28 U.S.C. § 3701.[2]
Legislative efforts against the act[edit]
New Jersey has been a leader, both in legislation and in the legal process, in support of the legalization of sports betting in New Jersey despite its original failure to take advantage of the carve out in the PASPA of 1992. The law is also known as the 'Bradley Act', named for New Jersey Senator and former NBA star Bill Bradley. New Jersey voters in 2011 voted for a state constitutional amendment that would permit sports gambling. The next year, the NJ State Legislature enacted the Sports Wagering Act ('2012 Act'), allowing sports wagering at New Jersey casinos and racetracks.[3]
Legal challenges[edit]
Proponents of repeal typically assert that the law as written is inherently unconstitutional, as the Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution reserves to the states all rights not explicitly granted to the federal government—such as gambling regulation. While the primarily legal challenge to the law came from New Jersey, other efforts to overturn it had been set in motion before the Supreme Court's decision in May 2018; this included a sports-betting bill being introduced in Kentucky[4], as well as the other states who are in the process of creating and or passing some form of sports betting legislation and the formation of the pro-repeal American Sports Betting Coalition, a lobby alliance which includes the American Gaming Association and the National Indian Gaming Association.[5]
PASPA was formally challenged in the state of New Jersey. In March 2009, New Jersey State Senator Raymond Lesniak filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey claiming, among other things, that the PASPA unconstitutionally discriminated among the states by allowing four states to offer sports betting while disallowing the other forty-six states from enjoying the privilege; however the case was dismissed as the court argued that only then-Governor Chris Christie could bring the suit, and at that time, Christie believed it would be difficult to challenge the law.[6] A 2010 referendum showed overwhelming support by state voters to legalize sports gambling,[7] and by 2012, the state passed a law that would allow for sports gambling at licensed locations.[8] This law was challenged by the National Collegiate Athletic Association, the National Basketball Association, the National Football League, the National Hockey League, and Major League Baseball in August 2012, arguing their new law violated PASPA.[9] The state argued that they knew their law likely violated PASPA, but argued that PASPA itself violated the Tenth Amendment's protection against anti-commandeering federal laws that stripped the power of the state to repeal their own sports gambling ban.[10] This case, heard in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, found for the sports leagues, dismissing the state's claims regarding PASPA.[11] New Jersey appealed the decision. On September 17, 2013, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, in a decision by Judge Julio M. Fuentes, found for the sports leagues, again ruling that the state law violated PASPA and enjoined the state from enacting the law.[12] However, the Appeals Court also ruled that PASPA did not prevent New Jersey from repealing any existing laws it had.[13]
Based on the Appeal Court's comment, New Jersey, now with Governor Christie's blessing, passed a new law in 2014 that repealed a former state law that banned sports gambling.[13] The four leagues and the NCAA filed suite against this new law, again arguing that it violated PASPA. The leagues and the NCAA prevailed both at District Court and at an en banc decisions from the Third Circuit by August 2016, leading the state to petition the Supreme Court of the United States to hear the case.[14] New Jersey appealed this case to the United States Supreme Court, requesting examination of PASPA under the anti-commandeering provisions of the Tenth Amendment.[15]
The Supreme Court accepted the case in June 2017[16] and heard oral arguments in December 2017;[17] during this time, Governor Christie stepped down and was replaced by Phil Murphy; the case before the court became Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Association. The case was combined with a separate petition NJ Thoroughbred Horsemen v. NCAA, representing commercial interests related to PASPA. The Court ruled in May 2018 in a 7-2 decision that parts of PASPA were unconstitutional as they commandeered power from the states, and in a 6-3 decision, determined that the whole of PASPA was unconstitutional.[18][19]
References[edit]
- ^Lambert, Troy (July 18, 2017). 'Supreme Gamble: The Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act'. Huffington Post.
- ^Rodefer, Jeffrey (March 5, 2007). 'Sports Protection Act'. gambling-law-us.com. Retrieved July 24, 2017.
- ^Johnson, Brent (October 17, 2014). 'Christie signs law allowing sports betting in N.J.'The Star-Ledger. Retrieved July 24, 2017.
- ^'New Kentucky Bill Would Legalize Sports Betting In Bluegrass State'. Legal Sports Report. September 20, 2017. Retrieved October 24, 2017.
- ^'Tribal, Commercial Casino Alliance On Sports Betting Gains Momentum'. Legal Sports Report. September 25, 2017. Retrieved October 24, 2017.
- ^Spoto, MaryAnn (September 25, 2011). 'Casino, horse racing leaders push for legalization of sports betting in N.J.'The Star-Ledger. Retrieved March 16, 2018.
- ^Spoto, MaryAnn (November 8, 2011). 'Sports betting backed by N.J. voters'. The Star-Ledger. Retrieved March 16, 2018.
- ^Friedman, Matt (January 17, 2012). 'Gov. Christie signs bill allowing gamblers to place bets on pro, college sports teams'. The Star-Ledger. Retrieved March 16, 2018.
- ^Heitner, Darren (August 7, 2012). 'Constitutionality Of Sports Betting Prohibition At Issue In NCAA And Professional Leagues' Lawsuit Against New Jersey'. Forbes. Retrieved July 24, 2017.
- ^Schamis, Axel; Van Bramer, Katherine. 'Christie v. National Collegiate Athletic Association'. Legal Information Institute. Retrieved March 18, 2018.
- ^Drape, Joe (March 27, 2013). 'Cash-Hungry States Eye Sports Betting, to Leagues' Dismay'. The New York Times. Retrieved July 24, 2017.
- ^'Appeals Court Upholds Constitutionality Of New Jersey Sports Betting Ban'. United States Department of Justice. September 17, 2013. Retrieved July 24, 2017.
- ^ abPurdum, David; Rodenberg, Ryan (March 3, 2018). 'The odds of legalized sports betting: New Jersey vs. the leagues'. ESPN. Retrieved March 16, 2018.
- ^Johnson, Brent; Salant, Jonathan (August 9, 2016). 'N.J. loses again in quest to bring sports betting to state'. The Star-Ledger. Retrieved July 23, 2017.
- ^'Christie v. National Collegiate Athletic Association'. SCOTUSblog. Retrieved July 26, 2017.
- ^Johnson, Brent; Salant, Jonathan (June 28, 2017). 'U.S. Supreme Court agrees to hear N.J. sports betting case'. The Star-Ledger. Retrieved July 22, 2017.
- ^'The NJ Sports Betting Case Gets Its Day In SCOTUS: What We Learned'. Legal Sports Report. December 4, 2017. Retrieved December 5, 2017.
- ^Purdum, David (May 14, 2018). 'Supreme Court strikes down sports betting law'. ESPN. Retrieved May 14, 2018.
- ^Maese, Rick (May 14, 2018). 'Analysis | What the Supreme Court's sports gambling decision means'. The Washington Post. ISSN0190-8286. Retrieved May 14, 2018.
Sports Gambling Wikipedia
External links[edit]
- Opinion for Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Assn. (16-476) from SupremeCourt.gov
- Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act of 1992, Chuck Humphrey, Gambling Law US
| California Legalize Sports Betting Amendment | |
|---|---|
| Election date November 3, 2020 | |
| Topic Gambling | |
| Status Not on the ballot | |
| Type Constitutional amendment | Origin State legislature |
The California Legalize Sports Betting Amendment was not on the ballot in California as a legislatively referred constitutional amendment on November 3, 2020.
Sports Gambling Wiki
The ballot measure would have authorized sports betting, including online or mobile sports betting, in California. The ballot measure would have allowed tribal casinos and licensed horseracing tracks to operate sports betting. The ballot measure would have also authorized licensed gambling establishments to offer games played with cards or tiles in which participants wager against each other.[1]
The ballot measure would have taxed on-site sports betting at 10 percent of gross revenue and online sports betting at 15 percent of gross revenue.[1]
- 1Text of measure
Sports Gambling Wiki
Text of measure
Constitutional changes
- See also: Article IV, California Constitution
The measure would have amended Section 19 of Article IV of the California Constitution.[1]
Path to the ballot
- See also: Amending the California Constitution
In California, a two-thirds vote is needed in each chamber of the California State Legislature to refer a constitutional amendment to the ballot for voter consideration.
Online Sports Gambling Wikipedia
The constitutional amendment was introduced into the California State Legislature as Senate Constitutional Amendment 6 (SCA 6) on June 27, 2019. On June 22, 2020, Sen. Bill Dodd, the amendment's lead legislative sponsor, requested that hearings on SCA 6 be canceled.[1] Sen. Dodd said, 'Given the deadlines for getting a measure on the November ballot and the impact of COVID-19 on the public's ability to weigh in, we were not able to get the bill across the finish line this year. It remains important that we lift this widespread practice out of the shadows to make it safer and to generate money for the people of California. I will continue to be engaged in the issue as we work toward 2022.'[2]
Sports Gambling Wikipedia
See also
The sports lotteries conducted in Oregon, Delaware, and Montana were exempt, as well as the licensed sports pools in Nevada[1]. In addition, Congress provided a one-year window of opportunity from the effective date of PASPA (January 1, 1993) for states which operated licensed casino gaming for the previous ten-year period to pass laws permitting sports wagering. The latter exception was clearly crafted with New Jersey in mind. However, New Jersey failed to take advantage of this opportunity. Excluded from the reach of PASPA are jai alai, as well as parimutuelhorse and dog racing.
In a May 2018 decision in Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that PASPA conflicts with the Tenth Amendment.
History[edit]
On June 26, 1991, the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Patents, Copyrights and Trademarks held public hearings on sports gambling. It found '(s)ports gambling is a national problem. The harms it inflicts are felt beyond the borders of those States that sanction it.' David Stern, the then-commissioner for the National Basketball Association, testified that 'The interstate ramifications of sports betting are a compelling reason for federal legislation.' In light of these findings, Congress exercised its authority under the Commerce Clause to enact Senate Bill 474 Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (PASPA) in 1992, codified at 28 U.S.C. § 3701.[2]
Legislative efforts against the act[edit]
New Jersey has been a leader, both in legislation and in the legal process, in support of the legalization of sports betting in New Jersey despite its original failure to take advantage of the carve out in the PASPA of 1992. The law is also known as the 'Bradley Act', named for New Jersey Senator and former NBA star Bill Bradley. New Jersey voters in 2011 voted for a state constitutional amendment that would permit sports gambling. The next year, the NJ State Legislature enacted the Sports Wagering Act ('2012 Act'), allowing sports wagering at New Jersey casinos and racetracks.[3]
Legal challenges[edit]
Proponents of repeal typically assert that the law as written is inherently unconstitutional, as the Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution reserves to the states all rights not explicitly granted to the federal government—such as gambling regulation. While the primarily legal challenge to the law came from New Jersey, other efforts to overturn it had been set in motion before the Supreme Court's decision in May 2018; this included a sports-betting bill being introduced in Kentucky[4], as well as the other states who are in the process of creating and or passing some form of sports betting legislation and the formation of the pro-repeal American Sports Betting Coalition, a lobby alliance which includes the American Gaming Association and the National Indian Gaming Association.[5]
PASPA was formally challenged in the state of New Jersey. In March 2009, New Jersey State Senator Raymond Lesniak filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey claiming, among other things, that the PASPA unconstitutionally discriminated among the states by allowing four states to offer sports betting while disallowing the other forty-six states from enjoying the privilege; however the case was dismissed as the court argued that only then-Governor Chris Christie could bring the suit, and at that time, Christie believed it would be difficult to challenge the law.[6] A 2010 referendum showed overwhelming support by state voters to legalize sports gambling,[7] and by 2012, the state passed a law that would allow for sports gambling at licensed locations.[8] This law was challenged by the National Collegiate Athletic Association, the National Basketball Association, the National Football League, the National Hockey League, and Major League Baseball in August 2012, arguing their new law violated PASPA.[9] The state argued that they knew their law likely violated PASPA, but argued that PASPA itself violated the Tenth Amendment's protection against anti-commandeering federal laws that stripped the power of the state to repeal their own sports gambling ban.[10] This case, heard in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, found for the sports leagues, dismissing the state's claims regarding PASPA.[11] New Jersey appealed the decision. On September 17, 2013, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, in a decision by Judge Julio M. Fuentes, found for the sports leagues, again ruling that the state law violated PASPA and enjoined the state from enacting the law.[12] However, the Appeals Court also ruled that PASPA did not prevent New Jersey from repealing any existing laws it had.[13]
Based on the Appeal Court's comment, New Jersey, now with Governor Christie's blessing, passed a new law in 2014 that repealed a former state law that banned sports gambling.[13] The four leagues and the NCAA filed suite against this new law, again arguing that it violated PASPA. The leagues and the NCAA prevailed both at District Court and at an en banc decisions from the Third Circuit by August 2016, leading the state to petition the Supreme Court of the United States to hear the case.[14] New Jersey appealed this case to the United States Supreme Court, requesting examination of PASPA under the anti-commandeering provisions of the Tenth Amendment.[15]
The Supreme Court accepted the case in June 2017[16] and heard oral arguments in December 2017;[17] during this time, Governor Christie stepped down and was replaced by Phil Murphy; the case before the court became Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Association. The case was combined with a separate petition NJ Thoroughbred Horsemen v. NCAA, representing commercial interests related to PASPA. The Court ruled in May 2018 in a 7-2 decision that parts of PASPA were unconstitutional as they commandeered power from the states, and in a 6-3 decision, determined that the whole of PASPA was unconstitutional.[18][19]
References[edit]
- ^Lambert, Troy (July 18, 2017). 'Supreme Gamble: The Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act'. Huffington Post.
- ^Rodefer, Jeffrey (March 5, 2007). 'Sports Protection Act'. gambling-law-us.com. Retrieved July 24, 2017.
- ^Johnson, Brent (October 17, 2014). 'Christie signs law allowing sports betting in N.J.'The Star-Ledger. Retrieved July 24, 2017.
- ^'New Kentucky Bill Would Legalize Sports Betting In Bluegrass State'. Legal Sports Report. September 20, 2017. Retrieved October 24, 2017.
- ^'Tribal, Commercial Casino Alliance On Sports Betting Gains Momentum'. Legal Sports Report. September 25, 2017. Retrieved October 24, 2017.
- ^Spoto, MaryAnn (September 25, 2011). 'Casino, horse racing leaders push for legalization of sports betting in N.J.'The Star-Ledger. Retrieved March 16, 2018.
- ^Spoto, MaryAnn (November 8, 2011). 'Sports betting backed by N.J. voters'. The Star-Ledger. Retrieved March 16, 2018.
- ^Friedman, Matt (January 17, 2012). 'Gov. Christie signs bill allowing gamblers to place bets on pro, college sports teams'. The Star-Ledger. Retrieved March 16, 2018.
- ^Heitner, Darren (August 7, 2012). 'Constitutionality Of Sports Betting Prohibition At Issue In NCAA And Professional Leagues' Lawsuit Against New Jersey'. Forbes. Retrieved July 24, 2017.
- ^Schamis, Axel; Van Bramer, Katherine. 'Christie v. National Collegiate Athletic Association'. Legal Information Institute. Retrieved March 18, 2018.
- ^Drape, Joe (March 27, 2013). 'Cash-Hungry States Eye Sports Betting, to Leagues' Dismay'. The New York Times. Retrieved July 24, 2017.
- ^'Appeals Court Upholds Constitutionality Of New Jersey Sports Betting Ban'. United States Department of Justice. September 17, 2013. Retrieved July 24, 2017.
- ^ abPurdum, David; Rodenberg, Ryan (March 3, 2018). 'The odds of legalized sports betting: New Jersey vs. the leagues'. ESPN. Retrieved March 16, 2018.
- ^Johnson, Brent; Salant, Jonathan (August 9, 2016). 'N.J. loses again in quest to bring sports betting to state'. The Star-Ledger. Retrieved July 23, 2017.
- ^'Christie v. National Collegiate Athletic Association'. SCOTUSblog. Retrieved July 26, 2017.
- ^Johnson, Brent; Salant, Jonathan (June 28, 2017). 'U.S. Supreme Court agrees to hear N.J. sports betting case'. The Star-Ledger. Retrieved July 22, 2017.
- ^'The NJ Sports Betting Case Gets Its Day In SCOTUS: What We Learned'. Legal Sports Report. December 4, 2017. Retrieved December 5, 2017.
- ^Purdum, David (May 14, 2018). 'Supreme Court strikes down sports betting law'. ESPN. Retrieved May 14, 2018.
- ^Maese, Rick (May 14, 2018). 'Analysis | What the Supreme Court's sports gambling decision means'. The Washington Post. ISSN0190-8286. Retrieved May 14, 2018.
Sports Gambling Wikipedia
External links[edit]
- Opinion for Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Assn. (16-476) from SupremeCourt.gov
- Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act of 1992, Chuck Humphrey, Gambling Law US
| California Legalize Sports Betting Amendment | |
|---|---|
| Election date November 3, 2020 | |
| Topic Gambling | |
| Status Not on the ballot | |
| Type Constitutional amendment | Origin State legislature |
The California Legalize Sports Betting Amendment was not on the ballot in California as a legislatively referred constitutional amendment on November 3, 2020.
Sports Gambling Wiki
The ballot measure would have authorized sports betting, including online or mobile sports betting, in California. The ballot measure would have allowed tribal casinos and licensed horseracing tracks to operate sports betting. The ballot measure would have also authorized licensed gambling establishments to offer games played with cards or tiles in which participants wager against each other.[1]
The ballot measure would have taxed on-site sports betting at 10 percent of gross revenue and online sports betting at 15 percent of gross revenue.[1]
- 1Text of measure
Sports Gambling Wiki
Text of measure
Constitutional changes
- See also: Article IV, California Constitution
The measure would have amended Section 19 of Article IV of the California Constitution.[1]
Path to the ballot
- See also: Amending the California Constitution
In California, a two-thirds vote is needed in each chamber of the California State Legislature to refer a constitutional amendment to the ballot for voter consideration.
Online Sports Gambling Wikipedia
The constitutional amendment was introduced into the California State Legislature as Senate Constitutional Amendment 6 (SCA 6) on June 27, 2019. On June 22, 2020, Sen. Bill Dodd, the amendment's lead legislative sponsor, requested that hearings on SCA 6 be canceled.[1] Sen. Dodd said, 'Given the deadlines for getting a measure on the November ballot and the impact of COVID-19 on the public's ability to weigh in, we were not able to get the bill across the finish line this year. It remains important that we lift this widespread practice out of the shadows to make it safer and to generate money for the people of California. I will continue to be engaged in the issue as we work toward 2022.'[2]
Sports Gambling Wikipedia
See also
2020 measures |
External links
Footnotes
- ↑ 1.01.11.21.3California State Legislature, 'Senate Concurrent Resolution 6,' accessed June 8, 2020
- ↑SBC Americas, 'California sports betting bill pulled over tribal opposition,' June 23, 2020
|
| State of California Sacramento (capital) | |
|---|---|
| Elections | California elections in 2020 |Voting in California |What's on my ballot? |Elections calendar |Election governance |Ballot access for candidates |Ballot access for parties |Campaign finance requirements |Redistricting |
| Ballot measures | List of California ballot measures |Local measures |Ballot measure laws |Campaign finance requirements |
| Government | Who represents me? |Congressional delegation |State executives |State legislature |State Senate |House of Representatives |2020 legislative session |Largest counties |Largest cities |School districts in California |State constitution |
| Judiciary | Courts in California |Judicial Selection |Federal courts |Supreme Court |Court of Appeals |Superior Courts |
| Public Policy | Budget and finances |Energy |Environment |Financial regulation |Healthcare |Immigration |Public education |Public pensions |Taxes |
