The Delaware case was them saying they wanted Vegas-style betting, since they had NFL betting in 1992 already. But the court ruled that they only had those parlay-style bets (the 'tickets' where you'd bet 4 games at 10 to 1 odds, basically), so that's all they can offer at their casinos now. Which they do, but they don't get a ton of business because they can't do straight bets.

Couldn't you synthesize a straight bet with a composition of these parlay bets? If you want to bet on say LAA over TEX, you bet a set of parlays with that and also with every possible combination of three other games, like LAD/SFG and also SFG/LAD, and so on.

Is there a marked difference in gambling problems between North America and Europe?

Maybe not, but there is a marked difference in which one has legal structures that descend from Puritans legislating others' morals.

"The issue is probably that Congress chose to make exemptions for states that already had sports betting, not that Congress had to do that or the courts forced them to do it."

yes, I meant to type "didn't" instead of "couldn't" in Post 36.

they chose not to take away what few states had something, and they gave NJ a unique 1-yr window to legalize sports betting (NJ had Atlantic City casinos by then). but the referendum never made it onto the ballot in 1993 (Republicans had tight race with Whitman vs Florio, and felt putting sports betting on ballot would hurt their gubernatorial chances), so the window closed permanently (so far).

they chose not to take away what few states had something

Is discriminating among the states in this fashion permitted by the 5th amendment? 14th amendment equal protection only applies to states, but the 5th amendment due process has been interpreted as requiring equal protection by the federal government. Given what Christie has said, this could be the nature of their core legal argument.

There's no question Congress has the right to declare sports betting illegal in all 50 states. The question is whether it is allowed to declare it illegal in some fraction of states.

We have plenty of lawyers around here. Does anyone have a definitive answer to that question?

yes, the whole suit is only 12 pages, mostly boilerplate. there's only one Count, and it only seeks an a-b-c-d-e (five things).

facts not in dispute - the 1992 federal law says one thing, and NJ law now says another. Is the 1992 law Constitutional? So the case is very simple AND of course complicated.

http://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/complaint-for-declaratory-injunctive-r-20931/

another complication could be that states control horse racing, jai alai, lottery, and other gambling. why not pro/college team sports betting, too, the advocates ask.

10th amendment case is made as well as 5th and 14th (and no, I'm not a lawyer).

I shouldn't say there's no question Congress could make sports betting illegal in all 50 states given the 10th amendment, but the courts have, as a practical matter, interpreted the commerce clause so broadly that they've allowed the federal government to pass nearly any law it wants under the guise of interstate commerce.