That lawsuit by the State of New Jersey goes before the Third Circuit Court of Appeals on March 17. At least that’s when oral arguments will be heard. It will probably be some time before we get a ruling. One judge who will be hearing arguments is the Hon. Julio Fuentes, who voted in 2013 to strike down a New Jersey law that permitted sports betting, in a lawsuit filed by the four major-league sports … yes, even the NBA. (The Garden State’s current and somewhat tortuous position is that sports wagering is not sanctioned or regulated by the state, but not forbidden either.) The leanings of the other two judges – Maryanne Trump Barry (yes, that Trump; she’s his sister) and Marjorie Rendell – are not known.
As to the second part of your question, having the future ability to place a sports bet from anywhere within the U.S. is unlikely without a repeal of the Professional & Amateur Sports Protection Act, more popularly known as PASPA or the Bradley Act, in recognition of then-Senator Bill Bradley, an early proponent. Betting on jai alai, horseracing and dog racing are exempt from its ban, as were sports lotteries in Oregon and Montana. NFL betting is legal in Delaware, but you have to wager on a parlay of multiple games. Only Nevada has a wide-open buffet of sports wagering.
(The Oregon Lottery’s Sports Action parlay betting, legalized in 1989, was grandfathered in under PASPA, but was retired by the 2006-07 Legislature, so that the state might host NCAA Division I championship games. Since 2008, Montana’s lottery offers fantasy-sports wagering, with the proceeds going to fatten the purses offered by the Board of Horse Racing. The state does not, however, take advantage of its legal ability to offer wagering on amateur and professional sports.)
Now, when PASPA was passed in 1992, states which had casino gambling for 10 years previous were given all of 1993 to legalize sports betting. Some are of the opinion that this was meant expressly to benefit Sen. Bradley’s home state of New Jersey. Complacently, however, the Garden State passed on this lucrative opportunity. That decision has been regretted by many since then, as gambling revenues from Atlantic City have waned in the last eight years. But arguments that PASPA infringes upon states’ rights to regulate gaming have fallen upon deaf ears in federal court.
At the time of the Super Bowl, Senator John McCain (R-Arizona) made waves by saying he had "no problem" with states and tribal reservations that offer casino gambling also providing sports wagering. He continued, "we need a debate in Congress. We need to have a talk with the American people and we need to probably have hearings in Congress on the whole issue so that we can build consensus." He noted that only 3 percent of the money wagered on sports in the U.S. is done so legally.
Unfortunately, while McCain is advocating Senate hearings, things are looking rather bleak in the House of Representatives. Representative Frank LoBiondo’s bill to amend PASPA, the Sports Gaming Opportunity Act of 2015, initially had four co-sponsors but three of them have withdrawn. In short, Congress is unlikely to do anything without the blessing of the major leagues. And with Commissioner of Baseball Rob Manfred calling for "fresh consideration" of the prevalent ban on sports wagering, the winds may finally be blowing in the bettor’s direction. However, if your state doesn’t already have some form of legalized gambling, I wouldn’t get my hopes up.
