Utah is one of just two U.S. states without any form of legalized gaming – commercial, tribal, even a state lottery. So when it throws its weight behind a legal appeal that would expand gambling, that’s sure to raise some eyebrows.
The Beehive State is joining the American Gaming Association and 17 other states in urging the U.S. Supreme Court to rule in favor of New Jersey’s appeal to decriminalize sports betting within its borders.
In two separate amicus brief filings, the AGA and the group of states – led by West Virginia and its attorney general, Patrick Morrissey – are urging the high court to strike down the 25 year-old Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act, which largely prohibits sports wagering outside of Nevada.
Geoff Freeman, president and CEO of the AGA, said that states’ filing is indicative of growing interest at the state level for legalized sports betting and that it sends a strong signal to the Supreme Court.
“State legislatures are beginning to hear the message,” he said. “Currently, 14 states have already introduced sports betting bills or resolutions in anticipation of legal sports betting that could be coming soon. 18 other states have joined West Virginia in filing a separate amicus brief to the Supreme Court.”
“We’re thrilled to see these 18 states join West Virginia, and we think that will go a long way with the court,” he continued.
The 19 states, he said, comprise a diverse and representative sample of the country that is “encouraging the federal government to get out of the way,” he said. The group includes states that both have and don’t have casino gambling, the state co-chairs of the National Association of Attorneys General’s gaming committee and the state chair of the Western Conference of Attorneys General.
Amicus briefs, also known as “friend of the court” briefs, are filed in a case by uninvolved parties who have an interest in the opinion that is ultimately delivered.
So what’s motivating a highly conservative state like Utah to support sports betting?
“It isn’t just about sports gambling. The fundamental principle at heart here is what defines state sovereignty. What powers does a state retain in order to regulate certain things within its own borders?” said Michelle Minton, a fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. “The states see this more as a defense of their own state sovereignty and preserving what that actually means rather than simply the ability to legalize sports gambling.”
Lisa Soronen, executive director of the State and Local Legal Center, which helped prepare the West Virginia brief, said that since it’s quite rare for the Supreme Court to take on an anti-commandeering case, it’s not uncommon for a multiplicity of states to jump in.
“Even if a case like this doesn’t seem that relevant to a particular state, the commandeering concept of the federal government coming in and telling states how to have their laws is something that every state cares about deeply,” she explained. “And even if a case doesn’t affect you today, the issue could affect you tomorrow.”
Soronen added that while the West Virginia brief touched on sports gambling, it focuses more intently on issues of federalism and states’ rights, as these appear to be the issues the Supreme Court is most interested in with regards to the New Jersey case.
“We focus a good deal of time in the brief on problems associated with the federal government passing any sort of law in any of context that could freeze state law in time,” she said of the brief, which is not yet publicly available.
“If the Supreme Court approves PASPA’s process – which effectively forces states to freeze their gambling laws in time, then the federal government can go on and do this in other contexts,” Soronen added, offering self-driving cars, physician-assisted suicide and regulated drugs as examples of areas in which states have come to different conclusions and have opted to regulate in different ways.
