by John Brennan, Sports Handle
There was a particularly curious aspect — at the conclusion of an even more curious court ruling — resulting from the lawsuit filed by five major sports leagues against Monmouth Park’s effort to launch Las Vegas-style sports betting at the New Jersey racetrack in 2014.
And that aspect, Florida State University sports law professor Ryan Rodenberg wrote in an 11-page essay published by the Journal of Legal Aspects of Sport last week, may cause legal headaches for years to come.
On Oct. 24, 2014, U.S. District Court Judge Michael Shipp issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) against the New Jersey Thoroughbred Horsemen’s Association, which runs Monmouth Park, to prevent any sports betting while Shipp deliberated on a permanent ruling about its legality.
Shipp somehow concluded that the NFL, NCAA, NBA, NHL, and MLB would suffer “irreparable harm” if a single Jersey Shore racetrack was permitted for a period of up to 30 days to offer the same gambling that dozens of Las Vegas casinos have offered for more than a half-century.
The proliferation of sports betting now in more than half of U.S. states allowing for such gambling — after a U.S. Supreme Court ruling in 2018 allowed for such an expansion — has not, in fact, resulted in any discernible damage to any of the sports organizations.
The 2014 hearing took place with Shipp and a few media members present in a Trenton courthouse, and with attorneys for the plaintiff sports organizations and all relevant parties participating via teleconference.
After Shipp’s order, Ron Riccio — an attorney for the horsemen — commented to the judge, “I was unclear whether the scope of your injunction is limited to the plaintiffs’ games, and not other sporting contests that the plaintiffs have no interest in.”
Shipp replied, “Well, right now the only — the scope is limited to the application that’s been before the court, which is limited to plaintiffs’ games.”
Riccio said: “That was the clarification I was seeking. Thank you, your honor.”
Rest is here…
