Supreme Court allows sports betting across the country

[BeyondGeography]

Source: NBC News

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court acted Monday to bust Nevada's monopoly on legal sports betting, allowing more states to get in on the action and reap the tax benefits.

The court struck down a federal law that required states to ban gambling on the outcome of sporting events. The Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act was highly unusual: it did not ban sports gambling nationwide as a matter of federal law, but it said the states were not allowed to permit it.

Nevada was grandfathered in when the law was passed in 1992.

New Jersey and then-Gov. Chris Christie challenged the law, arguing that it violated the Tenth Amendment, which the Supreme Court has said prohibits federal laws that compel states to carry out federal dictates. The gambling law, Christie said, commandeered the states by forcing them to prohibit sports wagering.

Writing for the majority, Justice Samuel Alito said the problem with the federal law is that "state legislatures are put under the direct control of Congress."

"A more direct affront to state sovereignty is not easy to imagine," he wrote.

Read more: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-allows-sports-betting-across-country-n868956

[mahatmakanejeeves]

1. P. S.: Republicans do not refer to it as "gambling." They call it "gaming." NT

[BeyondGeography]

3. That's what Harry Reid calls it, too

Anyway, the rest of the developed world has legal sports betting and our approach was doing nothing but enrich a huge black market. This is a sound ruling.

[unblock]

8. the ruling had next to nothing to do with the wisdom of gambling or its legal status

it had to do with whether the federal government could order states to pass certain laws or prevent them from passing certain laws.

it just so happens that the particular law that raised this challenge happened to involve sports betting, but it could just as easily have involved state income taxes or state-level environmental protections or the death penalty or state-level voting laws.

[BeyondGeography]

9. Yeah, I know

Four states were grandfathered in under PASPA and that created a glaring constitutional issue. It does help from a societal standpoint that logic was on the side of this ruling.

[yallerdawg]

14. In Alabama, we don't call it 'gambling,' either.

[7962]

36. Did the state ever allow Shorter to re-open??

Thats was a huge cluster by Alabama

[yallerdawg]

39. It's open, simulcast betting was never stopped - dogs, horses, bingo are 'games of skill.'

Less than a quarter of Victoryland's former 'electronic bingo game' space is operational - Alabama Supreme Court ruled they are illegal slot machine 'games of chance' (no jurisdiction on Indian land, though, where our big casinos are now operating 1000's of "illegal slot machines" ).

Dogs stopped racing years ago in Shorter, there's talk of bringing them back soon - Milton McGregor passed away recently and he had riled a lot of political folk over the years. Two administrations had closed down Victoryland with raids.

[Calista241]

37. I can't wait for Bama to have another Ray Perkins experience after Saban retires.

[yallerdawg]

40. When Saban retires...

we might just go steal us a Georgia head coach.

He's Saban's protégé, right?

[trof]

45. And a Roll Tide to that.

[lagomorph777]

49. This is starting to look like the dystopian "Biff's World" in "Back to the Future".

Or "Idiocracy"

[Crutchez_CuiBono]

2. Just what we need

more gambling.

[Jedi Guy]

25. What's wrong with gambling?

When Harrison County, Mississippi legalized dockside gambling in the early 90s, it resulted in thousands of jobs being created, in addition to all the tax revenues to the county and city governments. Local schools got tons of money to invest in new facilities, books, computers, etc. Meanwhile, Jackson County, just across the water, declined to legalize it, and as a result got all the downsides (traffic congestion being the biggie) while only getting some of the increased revenue from tourism. Overall, I'd say Harrison County was the winner there.

If adults want to spend their money on gambling, I don't see an issue there. I've never gambled in my life, apart from an occasional lottery ticket, since to me it seems like a waste of money. But as a practical matter, I don't see why gambling is automatically a bad thing.

[Major Nikon]

35. It's in direct competition with the collection plate

That's why churches have always opposed gambling vehemently.

Ironically gambling isn't a sin, but coveting your neighbor's cash pile is.

[Crutchez_CuiBono]

46. Maybe

bc the lies that come with gambling...I.E. ADDS to school funding. And bc it's addictive and predatory. Never met anyone who bought themselves anything nice, w a night out at the casino etc.

[Jedi Guy]

47. So...

So because some people can't be responsible while gambling, no one should be allowed to gamble? There's an old quote about censorship that fits this situation: "Censorship is telling a man he can't have a steak just because a baby can't chew it."

And I flatter myself that I know a wee bit more about what happened when gambling came to the Gulf Coast. I lived there at the time, you see. So no, those aren't "lies."

[Crutchez_CuiBono]

48. We don't allow heroin bc people can't control themselves as well.

I just think sports gambling turns a human endeavor into just another win at all costs set-up. You want to bet with the guy next to you or do Fantasy Football...have at it. Leave sports how they are, the best team wins and hard work and big dreams pays off. MONEY doesn't have to be in everything.
College is for academia. Sports are not the primary goal of higher EDUCATION. Pro teams, well, they're corporations and that's on them.
(Corporate Owners...Todays Royal Lords and Vassals of yore. They do what they want in their balliwick, and not even the law touches them.
Casinos and gambling destroy old folks pensions and peoples pay-checks every week. I know, i saw a friend spend his entire working career in casinos after payday and work in general. The majority of the people there are repeat offenders, bc they are chasing their losses. If you think casinos and gambling is such a 'mom and pop' squeeky clean project, watch "Casino." Still happens only the mob has been replaced by corporations. We have enough gambling imho. If you can't get it done w lotto tickets, friendly card games, a trip to Vegas once a lifetime...if at all, maybe it's time to check an GA Metting instead of lauding yet another way to make money without working for it. It will not benefit a majority of the country at all. Enough is enough. (That includes posting anymore on the topic.)
There's gambling in every state. By now everyone knows the guy or girl or couple who goes gambling regularly. I don't think your experience in gambling in LA etc is a viable one size fits all, for the rest of the USA. You take care.
That's all I have to say about it.

[unblock]

4. 7-2 decision, ginsburg and sotomayor dissenting.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/05/14/supreme-court-strikes-down-ban-sports-betting-new-jersey/1053022001/

The justices ruled 7-2 that a 25-year-old federal law that has effectively prohibited sports betting outside Nevada by forcing states to keep prohibitions on the books is unconstitutional. The ruling could set the stage for other states to expand legalized gambling as a source of government revenue.

Justice Samuel Alito, a New Jersey native, wrote the court's opinion in the case. Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor dissented





i don't know enough about the case. from the limited reporting i've seen, i think i might be with the 7-2 majority, though i'm wary of crossing rbg and sotomayor.

my initial take is to agree that the federal government shouldn't be able to order states to enact or not enact certain laws.

however, i don't know the details. i think the federal government *can* do things like withhold federal highway funds from states if they do or don't do certain things at the state level, so my opinion ultimately depends on details i don't know regarding the exact nature of the nationwide (except nevada) "ban" on sports betting.

i'd be interested to read the dissent before i commit to agreeing with the majority.

[PoliticAverse]

7. You can read it here...

(basically the dissenters - 3 - Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Breyer - thought that the entire law didn't have to be thrown out, only the offending portions).

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-476_dbfi.pdf

[unblock]

12. thanks. my read is that breyer's dissent rests solely on the severability argument, while ginsburg

also rejects the majority opinion's main argument that the parts of the status in dispute are unconstitutional.

ginsburg argues that by preventing the state from legalizing sports betting, it's not doing taking away any particular state power because everyone agrees that the federal government has the right to ban sports betting.

banning states or private facilities from sports betting in violation of federal laws shouldn't be a problem.


on reflection, i think i agree with this argument. certainly with the severability argument. congress clearly wanted to ban sports betting and the rest of the statute shouldn't fail even if the problematic parts are removed.

but more to the point, it's not "commandeering" the states to simply prevent them from violating or contradicting federal law.

[PoliticAverse]

15. Well as Ginsburg writes: "The Court wields an ax ... instead of using a scalpel"

and...

Deleting the alleged “commandeering” directions would free the statute to accomplish just what Congress legitimately sought to achieve: stopping sports-gambling regimes while making it clear that the stoppage is attributable to federal, not state, action.

So she wanted the law to survive even if the "commandeering" portion was declared unconstitutional and removed.

[unblock]

19. right -- all 3 dissenters agreed with the severability argument, only two agreed that

the "offending" parts of the statute weren't even unconstitutional.

[BumRushDaShow]

5. This is a biggy.

Had to dig for the vote - 6-3 with Ginsberg, Sotomayor and Breyer dissent (in part).

From ScotusBlog -

Here is a link to the decision in Murphy v. NCAA. Amy will have our analysis.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-476_dbfi.pdf

Andrew Hamm

34 minutes ago
"Congress can regulate sports gambling directly, but if it elects not to do so, each State is free to act on its own. Our job is to interpret the law Congress has enacted and decide whether it is consistent with the Constitution. PASPA is not."

Amy Howe

35 minutes ago
Court says that legalization "of sports gambling is a controversial subject" that "requires an important policy choice, but the choice is not ours to make."

Amy Howe

36 minutes ago
Six justices sign on to the majority in full, Breyer joins as to most. Ginsburg dissents, joined by Sotomayor and in part by Breyer.

Amy Howe

36 minutes ago
We have Murphy v. NCAA, from Alito. The decision of the Third Circuit is reversed.

http://live.scotusblog.com/Event/Live_blog_of_orders_and_opinions__May_14_2018?Page=0

[unblock]

21. in the scheme of things, this seems to be a pretty minor decision.

to the extent that it will (possibly temporarily) allow legalized sports betting in more states, i guess that's something if you're into that.

but it doesn't prevent congress from banning sports betting at the federal level, they just made what the majority is effectively calling a technical error by explicitly ordering states not to contradict federal law. but they could just pass the same law without those offending parts of the statute, and then sports betting is right back to being banned again.


i don't know what the politics of this matter is like these days, so i don't know if congress is likely to simply revise this law or not.

[BumRushDaShow]

31. "but they could just pass the same law without those offending parts of the statute"

It's an election year and I doubt they are going to do much "work" until the election is over.

I am not a sports better but I know there is a huge underground sports betting thing that has gone on forever (particularly with March Madness' college basketball), so if a state can find a way to make some money off of that by being guaranteed a percentage (or however they do it), and that can close some budget loopholes, then they would jump at the chance.

[PoliticAverse]

6. The problem with the law was it forced state governments to take certain actions.

The Federal government can just outlaw/regulate sports betting on its own.

[unblock]

13. this is the core of rgb's dissent. the federal government *did* ban sports betting

and all it did that was at issue was to require states not to have conflicting laws, and private businesses in the state not to violate federal law even if states legalized it.

the states were only prevented from doing things they can't do already. for instance, states can't pass a law saying their citizens don't have to pay federal income taxes. well, i suppose they could, but anyone who didn't pay their federal income taxes would still be in violation of federal law and the state law wouldn't help them.

if congress revised the income tax law to prevent states from saying their citizens didn't have to pay federal income taxes, could someone challenge it and then the court would conclude that the entire federal tax code is then effectively repealed?

doesn't make much sense.

[BeyondGeography]

17. The problem is the "ban" was only partial

And 46 states could argue they were being discriminated against.

[unblock]

22. i would think that would be the stronger constitutional argument, but that doesn't appear

to be at issue. that said, i didn't read the majority opinion, only the dissents.

[BeyondGeography]

23. This is a good background piece

based on the Dec. 17 hearing. The comments from Breyer are as you would expect, very sharp:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/danielwallach/2017/12/11/supreme-court-ncaa-christie-nj-betting/#3fbefed86ca7

As Justice Breyer observed during the oral argument, "there is no federal policy against authorizing sports gambling but for a federal policy that says a state can’t authorize sports gambling." In that scenario, he added, "the subject matter of the law is the state, telling states what to do, and therefore, it falls within commandeering."

...The severability issue was raised by several of the justices at the oral argument. The key question on severability, as posed by Justice Gorsuch, is: Would Congress have enacted 3702(2)’s prohibition against private parties operating sports gambling schemes without § 3702(1)’s prohibition against state authorization of that activity?

Calling that "a very hard question to answer," Justice Gorsuch suggested that the court could look at the "budget impact" that the two separate prohibitions posed on the federal government. He observed that the § 3702(1) prohibition (directed only against states) "does not cause any budget impact on the federal government," as contrasted with the § 3702(2) prohibition (directed only against private parties), which "is a direct regulation by the [federal] government and, therefore, might cost money." Based on this disparate budget impact, Justice Gorsuch surmised that one could envision Congress saying that it makes sense to enact § 3702(1) but that it was "only going to vote for (2) because of (1)."

Although Justice Gorsuch was skeptical that the two provisions could be severed, Clement, the leagues’ attorney, urged the court to focus on the other prohibitions contained in § 3702(1)— sponsoring, operating, advertising and promoting — that New Jersey was not challenging in this case. Clement reasoned that even if the Supreme Court were to invalidate § 3702(1)’s prohibition against state authorization of sports gambling on constitutional grounds, the net effect of such an interpretation would be that "states [still] can’t sponsor, operate, advertise [or] promote sports gambling schemes, and neither can private parties pursuant to state law." Under this savings interpretation, Clement added, "the statute operates almost the same way" by banning private parties (e.g., casinos and racetracks) from offering sports gambling in reliance on state law.

Justice Breyer, however, laid a trap for Clement, asking him to provide a "one-sentence answer" to the following question: In enacting PASPA, "Congress wanted the United States to [fill in the blank]?" To which Clement responded that Congress wanted "no state-sponsored or -operated gambling taking place by either individuals or by the state." Justice Breyer quickly seized on Clement’s answer, reminding him that he used the term "state-sponsored," which "means legislation, and therefore, there is no interstate policy other than the interstate policy of telling the states what to do." Clement then asked — to uproarious laughter in the courtroom — whether he could amend his answer...

[unblock]

24. i don't understand gorsuch's argument at all.

just because part 2 had a budgetary impact (not even clear what that budgetary impact is), it might not have approved it had it not been for part 1?

that seems like a bizarre argument to say that part 2 was dependent on part 1.


the usual argument against severability is that the rest of the law just doesn't make sense without the struck part. e.g., giving a tax rebate for something in the struck part. well, if the struck part is gone, the tax rebate for it no longer makes any sense. fine.

but in this case, congress wanting private businesses to not provide sports betting even if state law legalizes it doesn't seem to depend on the part preventing state law from legalizing it. in fact, part 2 appears to have been phrased as a contingency exactly in case part 1 was struck down!

[BeyondGeography]

28. It's convoluted, but maybe he was determined to avoid a partial repeal scenario

which among other things could have given Atlantic City a sports betting monopoly on the East Coast. Probably what the petitioners were hoping for to begin with...

[beachbum bob]

10. Great news....now we need nationwide decriminalize pot laws

And release of those in jail and expunge of all pot convictions.

[House of Roberts]

11. Is this the last week of court decisions?

Usually the last week is when all the big cases are announced.

[PoliticAverse]

16. It's the last "opinions" date on their calendar...

See: http://www.scotusblog.com/events/

[House of Roberts]

18. Then I guess there weren't many cases to announce this session.

Usually the first week of June is the big 'event'.
Thanks.

[PoliticAverse]

20. I believe there will be more opinions announced. The went until late June last year...

http://www.scotusblog.com/events/2017-06/

[rurallib]

27. They usually wait and announce decisions in June

and may go until June 30th

[Princess Turandot]

32. Unlikely. Prior to today, there were 23 opinions outstanding..

There were 63 cases argued this year; 40 decisions had already been announced before today.

They issued 5 opinions today, so there are 18 to go.

http://www.scotusblog.com/statistics/

Opinions aren't released on a schedule, except for being announced before the court adjourns for the term. (They're usually done sometime in June.) They don't concern themselves with who is in the courtroom to hear a decision.

[RandySF]

26. Prediction

People will get in over their heads and blame Democrats.

[obamanut2012]

29. Thank Gawd -- a friend places my MMA bets for me in Vegas

I trust her, but yay!

[berni_mccoy]

30. I actually agree with this ruling. Same logic could be used for Marijuana.

If a state wants to legalize a drug, the fed will not be able to block the legislation.

[unblock]

33. this decision doesn't legalize marijuana, nor does it prevent a federal ban on sports betting.

technically, though a number of states have decriminalized marijuana, it remains illegal under federal law, and therefore *anyone* using marijuana anywhere in the united states is committing a federal offense, even if they have gone through the state-level medical approval process.

the federal government is simply choosing, for the time being, not to enforce the federal law in this area, but it could change its mind on a whim.


all this ruling does is strike down the ban on sports betting because, in the eyes of the majority, it wasn't in the proper form. in theory, congress could rewrite the law easily to directly ban sports betting and not say anything about states banning it or not.

in practice, maybe they are not likely to do that, but constitutionally, it doesn't change much, and doesn't affect much of anything outside of sports betting because it happened to strike down this particular law.

[bucolic_frolic]

34. By this logic the Federal government won't be allowed to ban or regulate anything

that's the direction this conservative Supreme Court is going

[PoliticAverse]

38. No, this affirms that the Federal government can't force states to ban something

(like sports gambling or, say, pot) but is perfectly free to ban those things itself.

[Yavin4]

41. Sports betting is quite common in the UK

And they don't seem to have a problem with it.

[raccoon]

42. What is the Christian Taliban saying about this?

What is the Christian Taliban saying about this?

Surely they must have heard the story about Jesus and the moneychangers. Was this the Supreme Court they wanted? Was this why they voted for the Dotard?

[DeminPennswoods]

43. I will bet...

that McConnell rushes a bill through the Senate to regulate sports betting outside of Nevada to help save Dean Heller in the upcoming mid-terms.

[BeyondGeography]

44. Nah

The big companies in Vegas are for it because they operate all over the country.