By Scott Shaffer

A federal court in New York has ruled against the largest mixed martial arts (MMA) promoter in the country, holding that UFC and its owner, Zuffa LLC are not yet in a position to challenge New York's ban on MMA. As a result, MMA remains illegal in New York.

In 1997, New York enacted a ban on professional MMA. After the sport grew into the mainstream, the UFC, plus a group of fighters, trainers, gym owners and fans that it put together, filed a federal lawsuit in 2011 challenging the constitutionality of the ban. The case had been dismissed piece by piece in prior opinions, but in a ruling issued today, Judge Kimba Wood terminated the entire case by granting summary judgment in New York's favor.

Judge Wood ruled that UFC and Zuffa do not have standing to challenge New York's position because it was never threatened with prosecution for violating the ban, nor was it otherwise injured by the New York law. According to Judge Wood, potentially lost profits were not enough to give UFC/Zuffa standing to sue: "Zuffa’s briefing emphasizes that before this lawsuit began, the company refrained from involvement with professional MMA in New York because of its concerns about the ban. Its decision to refrain from economic activity, however, is not alone sufficient to demonstrate an injury in fact in this case," wrote Judge Wood.

If UFC/Zuffa wishes to continue its fight to legalize MMA in New York, it can appeal the ruling or lobby state legislators, efforts that have so far been unsuccessful. Judge Wood suggested a third avenue, which is try to stage an MMA event, and when some actual consequences are suffered, re-file the case in state court. Judge Wood's ruling ended with the following advice: "Plaintiffs, particularly Zuffa, may consider filing new vagueness claims based on events that occurred after this lawsuit... The Court advises Plaintiffs to weigh the merits of a new federal suit against those of a state declaratory judgment action, given that the latter —unlike a federal decision on vagueness grounds— could decisively settle disputes regarding the Ban’s scope.