Lexplug logoLexplug

OFC Comm Baseball v. Markell

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
579 F.3d 293, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 19460, 2009 WL 2710153 (2009)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

The Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act's (PASPA) grandfather clause, which exempts pre-existing state-run sports gambling schemes, limits a state to the specific types of wagers and the specific sports that were actually conducted during the exemption period, not what was merely authorized by state law.


Facts:

  • In 1976, the State of Delaware operated a sports betting lottery known as 'Scoreboard'.
  • The 'Scoreboard' scheme was limited to wagering on National Football League (NFL) games.
  • All games offered under the 'Scoreboard' scheme were multi-game parlay bets, requiring bettors to select the outcomes of several games at once.
  • The 1976 scheme did not include betting on any sports other than the NFL, nor did it permit single-game wagers.
  • In 2009, Delaware enacted the Sports Lottery Act to reintroduce a state-sponsored sports betting program.
  • The newly authorized program intended to offer wagers on a wide variety of professional and collegiate sports, extending far beyond the NFL.
  • The 2009 Act and its implementing regulations also planned to permit single-game betting, in which a wager is placed on the outcome of a single sporting event.

Procedural Posture:

  • The major professional and collegiate sports leagues (Leagues) filed a complaint against Delaware state officials in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware.
  • The Leagues' complaint sought to block the implementation of Delaware's new Sports Lottery Act, claiming it violated the federal Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (PASPA).
  • The Leagues filed a motion for a preliminary injunction to prevent the sports betting scheme from commencing.
  • The District Court denied the Leagues' motion for a preliminary injunction.
  • The Leagues (appellants) filed an interlocutory appeal of the District Court's denial to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, with Delaware officials as appellees.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does Delaware's 2009 Sports Lottery Act, which authorizes single-game betting and wagers on a wide range of sports, violate the federal Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (PASPA) by exceeding the scope of the multi-game, NFL-only parlay betting scheme the state conducted in 1976?


Opinions:

Majority - Hardiman, Circuit Judge.

Yes. Delaware's proposed sports betting scheme violates PASPA because its grandfather clause exception only permits the continuation of schemes 'to the extent that the scheme was conducted' by the state during the specified period. The court held that the phrase 'was conducted' is unambiguous and restricts Delaware to the specific form and scope of its 1976 betting operation. This means Delaware is limited to multi-game parlay betting exclusively on NFL games. The court distinguished between what a state may have 'authorized' and what it 'conducted,' noting that Congress used both terms differently in other parts of the statute. Therefore, expanding the betting scheme to include new sports or new types of wagers, such as single-game betting, exceeds the narrow exception granted by PASPA and is prohibited.



Analysis:

This decision narrowly construes PASPA's grandfather clause, establishing a significant precedent that limits the expansion of pre-existing state sports gambling operations. By focusing on the plain meaning of 'was conducted' versus 'was authorized,' the court solidified the federal government's intent to contain, rather than enable the growth of, state-sponsored sports betting. The ruling confirms that the exception is not a broad license for exempted states to create modern, expansive sportsbooks but is instead a limited permission slip to continue only the specific activities previously in operation. This interpretation significantly constrained the economic potential of sports betting in grandfathered states until PASPA was later overturned.

🤖 Gunnerbot:
Query OFC Comm Baseball v. Markell (2009) directly. You can ask questions about any aspect of the case. If it's in the case, Gunnerbot will know.
Locked
Subscribe to Lexplug to chat with the Gunnerbot about this case.

Unlock the full brief for OFC Comm Baseball v. Markell