This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

Congress enacted the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (PASPA), making it 'unlawful' for 'a government entity' or a person acting at the direction of a government entity 'to sponsor, operate, advertise, promote, license, or authorize by law or compact . . . a lottery, sweepstakes, or other betting, gambling, or wagering scheme based . . . on' competitive sporting events. New Jersey law paralleled PASPA, prohibiting sports gambling by its Constitution and by statute. New Jersey constituents amended the state's Constitution to allow the legislature to authorize sports gambling. New Jersey enacted the Sports Wagering Act in 2012. The National Collegiate Athletic Association and four professional sports leagues (Ps) initiated an action in federal court against the New Jersey Governor and other state officials (Ds), seeking to enjoin the 2012 Act as violative of PASPA and arguing that they would be irreparably injured unless an injunction was issued. The NJTHA intervened. Ds argued that PASPA unconstitutionally commandeered the states' sovereign authority. The District Court disagreed, held that PASPA was constitutional, and enjoined the implementation of the 2012 Act. This court affirmed, reasoning that PASPA does not affirmatively command the states to act and consequently did not prohibit them from repealing any existing bans on sports wagering. The Supreme Court denied certiorari. The New Jersey legislature enacted a law repealing certain state law provisions that prohibited gambling at horse race tracks and casinos (2014 Act). NJTHA immediately announced its intention to conduct sports gambling. Ps filed this suit and requested a TRO and preliminary injunction to enjoin NJTHA from doing so, again asserting irreparable injury. Ds relied on our reasoning in Christie I that the federal law allowed a repeal of state sports gambling prohibitions. Ds asserted that a grant of Ps' request would again raise the issue of PASPA's constitutionality. NJTHA argued that Ps' assertion that sports gambling would harm them was false, since they 'support, participate in, and significantly profit from betting on the outcomes of their games as well as the performances of the players in their games.' NJTHA complained that Ps had not posted a bond, as required by Rule 65, and attached a certification asserting that they would lose $1,170,219 per week if a TRO was granted. The District Court granted the requested TRO and, in doing so, relied on our holding in Christie I that PASPA is constitutional. The Court ordered Ps to post a $1.7 million bond, which it believed was 'on the high side to avoid any potential loss to Ds.' The court extended the TRO for an additional two weeks and increased the bond amount to a total of $3.4 million. The Court granted summary judgment to Ps, holding that the 2014 Act was 'invalid as preempted by PASPA.' It entered a permanent injunction against Ds, enjoining them 'from violating PASPA through giving operation or effect to the 2014 [Act] in its entirety.' This Court first affirmed the order. It then affirmed the grant of summary judgment on a rehearing en banc. The Supreme Court granted certiorari and reversed the en banc judgment. PASPA's prohibition of sports gambling violated the Constitution's anticommandeering principle because 'state legislatures are [still] put under the direct control of Congress.' NJTHA filed a motion in the District Court for judgment on the bond, which the District Court denied. It held that NJTHA was not 'wrongfully enjoined' per Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c). The Court stated, 'That PASPA's constitutionality was introduced on appeal does not convert the bond, which assured that the 2014 [Act] amounted to an authorization, into a bond that assured any and all possibilities.' It then held that good cause existed to deny NJTHA's motion. The District Court reasoned that the law in this case had changed, characterizing PASPA as 'constitutionally valid' in 2014, when the TRO was entered, and invalid in 2018. NJTHA appealed, claiming that the District Court was wrong on both counts. NJTHA claims that the discretion to deny bond damages under Rule 65(c) does not exist.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.