A Superior Court judge ruled it has standing due to a losing bet

Lawsuit that seeks to halt sports betting in Rhode Island goes forward

Judge Brian Stern in September granted the state’s motion to dismiss the case, but Daniel Harrop (photo) then revealed a previously undisclosed bet on a Patriots game and amended his complaint to cite the loss as grounds for standing.
2019-12-09
Reading time 1:59 min
Judge Brian Stern argued that Former Providence mayoral candidate Daniel Harrop, who seeks to stop sports wagering until it is approved by voters, has standing to sue because he lost money on the NFL’s New England Patriots last year. Gov. Gina Raimondo claims that voters approved sports betting when they approved table games several years ago. The underlying constitutional dispute might now be decided on the merits.

A Superior Court judge Thursday ruled that Former Providence mayoral candidate Daniel Harrop has standing to sue the Rhode Island’s legal sports gambling operation because he lost money on the NFL’s New England Patriots last year.

Harrop wants a judge to halt state-sponsored sports wagering at Twin River’s casinos and online until it is approved by voters, arguing that the state constitution requires a referendum for any expansion of the types of gambling allowed.

Gov. Gina Raimondo’s administration counters that voters approved sports betting when they approved table games several years ago and has tried to get the case thrown out on the grounds that Harrop isn’t harmed by sports betting and lacks standing to bring the suit, the Providence Journal reports.

Judge Brian Stern in September granted the state’s motion to dismiss the case, but Harrop then revealed a previously undisclosed bet on a Patriots game and amended his complaint to cite the loss as grounds for standing. The amended complaint doesn’t say how much Harrop lost or which game he wagered on.

In a 17-page ruling Thursday, Stern decided that bet was sufficient to allow the case to go on. “As noted by Chief Justice [Earl] Warren, ‘[s]tanding has been called one of the [most] amorphous concepts in the entire domain of public law,’” Stern wrote. “This Court has parsed through Rhode Island and federal jurisprudence to interpret the standing doctrine and finds that the Plaintiff has standing, and his claim is justiciable.”

The decision means the underlying constitutional dispute over whether Raimondo and lawmakers wrongly denied voters a say on sports betting might now be decided on the merits. “Obviously we are pleased with the court’s decision and we are looking forward to finally having the opportunity to explain to the court that the General Assembly and Gov. Raimondo violated the constitution,” said Brandon Bell, one of Harrop’s attorneys in the case and former state GOP chairman.

The state has budgeted $22.7 million in revenue from sports betting this year, although the most recent estimate is that only $9.4 million will come in by the end of next June.

“The Court has not yet ruled on the merits of this case,” Josh Block, spokesman for Raimondo, said in an email. “Multiple legal opinions have all affirmed that sports betting was already approved by Rhode Island voters, and we remain confident that this complaint will ultimately be decided in our favor.”

Leave your comment
Subscribe to our newsletter
Enter your email to receive the latest news
By entering your email address, you agree to Yogonet's Condiciones de uso and Privacy Policies. You understand Yogonet may use your address to send updates and marketing emails. Use the Unsubscribe link in those emails to opt out at any time.
Unsubscribe
EVENTS CALENDAR