Full Bench Of Appeal Judges In New Jersey Case Not Necessary, Say Sports Leagues

By Casinomeister, Last updated Oct 2, 2015

"The Court is being asked to resolve a conflict that does not exist," claims sports leagues' lawyer

The US national sports leagues are opposing New Jersey's request that a full bench of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals review the latest rejection of the state's appeal on its sports betting legalisation law (see previous InfoPowa reports).
In a filing Tuesday, the sports leagues' legal representative, Paul Clements, argued that there is no need for the entire court to take up the issue.
"Defendants [New Jersey] ask this Court to resolve a conflict that does not exist, in hopes of reopening a constitutional question that they already lost," he wrote in a 20-page brief.
In August this year the appeal court upheld an earlier decision blocking New Jersey's latest bid to allow intrastate sports wagering casinos and horse tracks.
The state then alleged a conflict with earlier court decisions and requested a full bench review by all 23 active judges.
Reacting to the request, the appeals court directed the sports leagues to provide reasons why it should not order such a review, and this week the leagues responded through Clements.
Clements' brief argues that New Jersey has incorrectly interpreted the appeal court's ruling, which he claims "simply makes the common sense points that not every law styled as a 'repeal' is a genuine repeal" and that "the revised state sports betting law that left an option for state racetracks and casinos to run their own sports betting operations amounted to an illegal authorisation of sports betting by the state."
The publication NJ.com says that one judge, Julio Fuentes, stands out in the case as favouring the leagues' arguments in 2013 in a two judges to one decision, and again in 2015 in a dissenting opinion in another 2 to 1 ruling.

Online Casino News Courtesy of Infopowa

---