Michael Shipp Is a Graduate of Rutgers and an Adjunct Professor at Seton Hall
U.S. District Judge Michael Shipp was scheduled to have published an opinion on Monday in the New Jersey sports betting case, but he announced a postponement. The judge granted an extension on the case, so both sides could file more legal briefs.
October 31 is the new date when arguments will be made before the judge. Then Judge Shipp will rule on whether his 2013 order will allow New Jersey casinos and racktracks to operate their own sportsbooks.
U.S. District Court
In 2013, Judge Shipp ruled that New Jersey could not license and regulate sportsbooks, because sports betting was banned in all but 4 U.S. states by the PASPA act of 1992. In his opinion on that ruling, Shipp stated that states could choose to look the other way if unregulated sportsbooks handled bets. The ruling was on a case that goes all the way back to 2011, when New Jersey voters overwhelmingly voted to approve sports gambling in the state. The vote prompted a lawsuit by the major U.S. sports leagues, including the NBA, NFL, and Major League Baseball.
New Jersey Governor Chris Christie wants to tests the limits of Shipp’s ruling. Last month, Chris Christie ordered the Attorney General’s office and the Division of Gaming Enforcement not to prosecute Atlantic City casinos and New Jersey racetracks which accepted sports bets. In the opinion of Christie and his legal advisors, Shipp’s ruling allowed a state the right not-to enforce.
Raymond Lesniak Suggests Other Measures
Opinions are varied on whether the latest legal maneuver will work. Paul Mulshine of the Star Ledger wrote a scathing op-ed piece about Governor Christie’s mishandling of the legal case, going back to his veto of a gambling bill in August. Mulshine’s opinions seem to mirror those of State Senator Raymond Lesniak, who is set to introduce a new bill that would repeal New Jersey’s previous sports betting laws.
Others see the case as having merit. If the state does not prosecute such activity, the leagues could do nothing but sue the gambling facilities. Judge Shipp’s court might order the DGE and Attorney General to act, but Shipp has indicated he might not go that route before.
Sports Betting Repeal Needed
Without the measures Senator Lesniak has suggested, most legal experts and gaming pundits believe that New Jersey is doomed to repeat its legal failures of 2012 and 2013. In those instances, New Jersey lost in three rounds of the legal infighting with the NFL and its fellow leagues: U.S. District Court, appellate court, and the U.S. Supreme Court.
That’s why Raymond Lesniak and several other Democratic lawmakers were so critical of Chris Christie when he vetoed an August sports betting statute repeal bill that crossed his desk. Many people at the time believes Christie had national ambitions and did not want to risk alienating the social conservatives by pushing further for a controversial sports betting law. Christie’s motives became apparent only in September, when he announced that the state would challenge the PASPA law on other grounds–by simply not enforcing existing laws.
Ray Lesniak would say that the logical conclusion to the New Jersey administration’s latest challenge would be a sports wagering repeal act. That way, the Attorney General of New Jersey could go to Judge Shipp with changes that might require Shipp to make a new ruling. If nothing has changed, say some pundits, then the judge really has nothing to rule upon. That is what the NFL’s lawyers recently argued, in which several op-ed writers pointed out was a brilliant and devastating legal brief.
Michael Shipp’s NFL Connection
Michael Shipp should be familiar with the specific cares and concerns of the pro sports leagues, especially the NFL. The judge’s brother, Marcel Shipp, was an NFL player from 2001 to 2008. Most of that time was spent with the Arizona Cardinals, where Marcel Shipp served as a backup to such backs as Emmitt Smith and Edgerrin James. In 2002, he had over 800 yards and 9 touchdowns for the Cards.
