Rhode Island Judge Tosses Lawsuit Against Sports Betting

  • Dan Harrop claimed sports betting is unconstitutional
  • Primary argument was that gambling expansion referendum did not explicitly list sports betting
  • Judge ruled that the referendum wording was fair, did not have to list all forms of gambling
  • Rhode Island sports betting revenue has been devastated by pandemic
judge's gavel
Sports betting was deemed constitutional in Rhode Island on Monday after a Superior Court judge jettisoned a lawsuit challenging referenda from 2012 and 2016. [Image: Shutterstock.com]

Plaintiff filed suit a year ago

A Rhode Island Superior Court judge struck down a lawsuit against the state’s sports betting industry, declaring the pastime constitutional. The case was decided on Monday when Judge Brian Stern sided with the defendants, led by the Rhode Island Division of Lotteries, against plaintiff Dan Harrop.

Harrop, a former Providence mayoral candidate, filed his lawsuit back on May 1, 2019. His primary argument was that when Rhode Island voters approved gambling expansion via referendum in 2012 and 2016, sports betting was not explicitly listed in said referendum. Thus, even though state lawmakers passed a sports betting bill in 2018, Harrop and his legal team believe the law is unconstitutional because voters did not ok sports betting specifically.

In September 2019, the Superior Court did grant the state’s motion to dismiss the suit because Harrop had not personally been harmed by sports betting. Harrop, however, showed that he had lost a football wager, so the case was allowed to move forward because he had technically been harmed.

Referendum need not list sports betting

Judge Stern explained in his ruling that voters did have “fair notice” that they were authorizing sports betting by approving expanded casino gambling, writing:

‘Fair notice’ does not require that every detail or ramification of the measure be explained.”

He went on to say that the “such as” in the voter handbook passage referencing “state-operated casino gaming, such as table games” is not exclusive just because it does not explicitly say sports betting. In fact, the handbook mentioned Class III gaming as a possibility, which itself includes sports wagering.

On the thirtieth page of his decision, Judge Stern concluded briefly: “Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on Count III of his Fourth Amended Complaint is denied.”

In a response statement, Rhode Island Lottery spokesperson Paul Grimaldi thanked the judge and noted that sports betting has been popular in the state “with the revenue generated from it supporting investments in education, health care, infrastructure and more.”

Sports betting dollars plunge during pandemic

During the COVID-19 pandemic, though, there has been almost no revenue produced by sports betting. During the lockdown, sporting events have been non-existent, naturally resulting in no betting markets. Only just recently have some leagues begun to start back up around the world.

Handle, or the amount of money bet at sportsbooks in Rhode Island, plunged 93.4% to $591,377, the latest month for which the state has published numbers. Revenue, the amount that the sportsbooks actually won on those wagers, was down 96.7% to just $27,381.

Rhode Island would have been in slightly better shape were it not for the requirement that bettors register for mobile accounts in person. Thus, because the state’s two casinos – both owned by Twin Rivers – have been closed since mid-March, the only people who have been able to place bets have been those who registered before the lockdown.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *