NJ judge sets court date for arguments on sports betting case

TAGs: Kirby Garlitos, MLB, monmouth park, nba, ncaa, New Jersey, NHL, Ray Lesniak, sports betting

New Jersey and the professional sports leagues and NCAA now have a court date to argue the fate of sports betting in the Garden State. U.S. District Judge Michael Shipp announced that all parties involved in this long-running saga will convene on November 20, 2014—the day before Shipp’s TRO expires—in Trenton, New Jersey to voice their arguments on whether the ban on sports betting in New Jersey should be extended.

NJ judge sets court date for arguments on sports betting caseThe pro sports leagues and the NCAA seek a preliminary injunction with the objective of extending the TRO until the issue is settled in court. The state has until Monday, November 2, 2014, to file it and the plaintiffs—the leagues and the NCAA—have until Friday, November 7, 2014, to respond.

On November 20th, representatives from both sides argue their cases in front of Judge Shipp. Should he issue the injunction and extend the ban, the state is expected to bring the matter up to the Third U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia.

Senator Ray Lesniak, one of the main driving forces in legalizing sports betting in New Jersey, indicated that the state does plan to take it to the Third Circuit. Lesniak is confident that the court will rule on the side of the state despite having rejected New Jersey’s constitutional challenge to the 1992 Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act that bans state-sponsored sports betting in all but Nevada, and three other states (Oregon, Delaware, Montana).

In addition to announcing the November 20 court date, Judge Shipp also announced the increase in the amount of bond the leagues and the NCAA have to post to $3.4 million, twice the original $1.7 million amount. The bond was issued to cover estimated losses Monmouth Park could absorb as a result of the temporary restraining order.


views and opinions expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of