A Synopsis Of Oral Arguments On PASPA's Constitutionality

Today, oral argument took place in the U.S. District Court, District of New Jersey, on the question that will determine whether New Jersey casinos and racetracks can offer sports wagering - namely, is the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act ("PASPA") constitutional?  New Jersey has suggested that it is not, because it violates both the Tenth Amendment and the Commerce Clause.  The professional sports leagues and the DOJ have argued that it is constitutional.  The case is pending before Judge Michael A. Shipp.

The DOJ began its argument by discussing Congress' power under the Commerce Clause to regulate gambling.  According to the DOJ, PASPA is rationally related to that power.  Also, PASPA does not place a burden on New Jersey because it has complied for over 20 years by simply doing nothing.  The DOJ stated that the rational basis standard plus the presumption that statutes are constitutional was enough to defeat a Commerce Clause argument.