Lots of good stuff coming in this one.
viewtopic.php?p=182240#p182240
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/1 ... 6_dbfi.pdfFife wrote: ↑Sat Sep 30, 2017 6:38 amThe whole term looks like it is brimming with intrigue.
Some epic stuff in the works:
FEDERALISM:
Christie v. National Collegiate Athletic Association
New Jersey governor Chris Christie’s efforts to obtain a plum appointment in the Trump administration may have come to naught, but his petition for certiorari was granted by the Supreme Court in Christie v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, potentially the most important federalism case of the term. Under the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (PASPA), states may not “authorize” gambling on amateur or professional sports events. (Four states — Delaware, Montana, Nevada, and Oregon — are exempted under a grandfather clause.) Despite PASPA, New Jersey lawmakers authorized sports betting under state law, prompting the NCAA and other sports associations to sue. There’s no dispute that, under current law, the federal government may prohibit sports betting directly. Current interpretations of the Commerce Clause clearly reach this far. At issue in Christie is something slightly different: Whether federal law can require that states maintain their own pre-existing prohibitions on sports betting, as PAPSA seems to. If the justices agree, this case could have significant implications for other contemporary federalism disputes, including those over marijuana and “sanctuary cities,” where states likewise wish to eliminate state-level prohibitions on activity prohibited under federal law.
