Attorney Kate Lowenhar-Fisher Quoted in USA Today Article on the Supreme Court's Anticipated Ruling on New Jersey Sports Betting Case
Dickinson Wright Gaming Attorney Kate Lowenhar-Fisher was recently quoted in the article “With New Jersey sports betting case, Supreme Court could affect wide array of issues” published by USA Today.
The article discusses the potential implications of the Supreme Court’s anticipated ruling on a case in which New Jersey is challenging the constitutionality of the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (PASPA), a 1992 law that provides that any state that did not legalize sports betting by 1993 is prohibited from doing so.
There are a number of options that the Supreme Court may consider when making its decision in this case. One possible outcome is that the court could strike down parts of PASPA and not the whole thing, such as the part that treats some states differently from others.
“On behalf of the state of Nevada, I love that we're treated differently from everybody else, but that's probably not fair in terms of equal sovereignty,” Lowenhar-Fisher said. “I was very surprised there were no questions from the court on the equal sovereignty issue.”
To read the complete article, please click here.
The article discusses the potential implications of the Supreme Court’s anticipated ruling on a case in which New Jersey is challenging the constitutionality of the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (PASPA), a 1992 law that provides that any state that did not legalize sports betting by 1993 is prohibited from doing so.
There are a number of options that the Supreme Court may consider when making its decision in this case. One possible outcome is that the court could strike down parts of PASPA and not the whole thing, such as the part that treats some states differently from others.
“On behalf of the state of Nevada, I love that we're treated differently from everybody else, but that's probably not fair in terms of equal sovereignty,” Lowenhar-Fisher said. “I was very surprised there were no questions from the court on the equal sovereignty issue.”
To read the complete article, please click here.
