Written by :
Published on :
NEWARK, N.J. (Associated Press) — Supporters of legalized sports gambling in New Jersey and several other states were dealt a no-decision of sorts Tuesday when the U.S. Supreme Court delayed a ruling on whether it will take up the states' challenge to a federal ban.
The court invited the solicitor general to file a brief on behalf of the government, which means a decision could take several more months.
The Supreme Court had been expected to include the sports betting case in its announcement Tuesday on which cases it will hear this year.
New Jersey is challenging a 1992 federal law that restricts sports betting to Nevada and three other states that already had approved some form of wagering.
In recent briefs to the Supreme Court, lawyers representing the state have argued the federal law violates the Constitution by preventing states from repealing their own laws.
Several states including Mississippi, West Virginia, Arizona, Louisiana and Wisconsin have joined New Jersey's effort.
President-elect Donald J. Trump hasn't named a new solicitor general yet. When Trump officially takes office Friday he will be the first U.S. president to have owned casinos. He has spoken favorably about legalizing sports gambling.
In a 2015 interview with Fox Sports 1, Trump indicated he wouldn't oppose sports betting or daily fantasy sports "because it's happening anyway."
Republican Gov. Chris Christie has championed New Jersey's effort in an attempt to use sports gambling revenues to bolster the sagging fortunes of the state's casino and horse racing industries.
The case has a lengthy legal history.
New Jersey voters overwhelmingly approved legalized sports betting in 2011 and the following year the state enacted a law allowing betting at racetracks and casinos.
The four major pro leagues and the NCAA sued to block that law from taking effect, arguing the integrity of their games would be threatened and there would be more incidences of game-fixing. A trial judge and, later, a federal appeals court ruled against the state.
