Justices reject Del. bid to expand sports betting

The U.S. Supreme Court rejected Monday an appeal by Delaware to expand its sports-betting offerings beyond professional football.

The decision could have ripple effects on New Jersey, which is working for the repeal of the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act of 1992, which restricted sports betting to four states: Nevada, Oregon, Montana and Delaware.

The justices denied Delaware's petition for judicial review without comment, leaving in place a ruling last fall by the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in Philadelphia that limits Delaware to offering multi-game bets on National Football League games and prohibits it from offering the more popular and lucrative single-game wagering allowed in Las Vegas.

The appeals court also ruled that Delaware could not offer parlay betting beyond NFL games.

Brian McCarthy, a spokesman for the NFL, said Monday that the league had no comment on the decision.

But the other professional leagues said they were happy with it. Major League Baseball, the National Basketball Association, the National Hockey League and the National Collegiate Athletic Association united last year in opposing the expansion of sports betting.

"The NCAA is pleased with the decision," spokeswoman Stacey Osburn said. "We oppose sports wagering, as it poses a risk to student-athlete well-being and the integrity of the game."

The NHL's deputy commissioner, Bill Daly, said: "We obviously think it's the right result and the one the major professional sports leagues have collectively sought since the beginning of the litigation last year."

In rejecting the appeal, the high court thwarted efforts by Gov. Jack Markell to use expanded sports betting to help close Delaware's budget gap.

"The state was hoping to have its day in court for our arguments to be fully heard, but we will not get that chance," Markell said. "The result is unfortunate but not surprising, since only a small fraction of appeals to the Supreme Court are actually heard. Even with this decision, Delaware remains the only state on the East Coast that offers betting on NFL games."

The state hoped sports betting on the 2009 NFL season would raise about $53 million for Delaware, mostly from a combination of increased traffic to the state's three racetracks with slot machines and crossover play by those wagering on games.

But with a reduced number of games to wager on and fewer bettors in the casinos, the figure raised was much lower - about $11.7 million lower, according to the state Finance Department. Delaware raised about $41.3 million from sports betting in its first year.

Monday's ruling means Delaware may continue to offer only parlay betting involving at least three NFL games. To win, a parlay bettor has to be correct on every game.

In New Jersey, a lawmaker working to overturn the federal ban on sports betting there said Monday's ruling would "have no legal effect" on the state's efforts.

In March 2009, State Sen. Ray Lesniak (D., Union) sued the U.S. Justice Department, seeking to overturn the 1992 law. That suit is still pending.

Lesniak said Delaware officials were arguing the law's interpretation.

"I'm saying that PASPA is unconstitutional," he said. "That's one of the flaws of the statute. It discriminates against the rest of the states."

Gov. Christie asked for a delay in the New Jersey case while deciding whether he should replace former Gov. Jon S. Corzine as one of the plaintiffs, along with Lesniak. Other plaintiffs include the Interactive Media Entertainment and Gaming Association, the New Jersey Thoroughbred Horsemen's Association, and the Thoroughbred Breeders Association of New Jersey.

Yet Monday's ruling could help Atlantic City in one respect, Lesniak said: "Delaware won't have this form of expanded gambling to lure customers from Atlantic City to its racinos."

Atlantic City-based casino-law expert Lloyd D. Levenson agreed.

"Delaware was basically stuck with the type of approved sports betting that it had, and that's what these opinions are restating," Levenson said. "The courts are saying to Delaware: 'You can do what you had because you were grandfathered under the federal law.'

"We, on the other hand, never had it and are not stuck in that way."