SCOTUS: Re Sports Betting and Federalism FTW!

[Fife]

Well, I've read the opinion over lunch. The opinion smashes the federal Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (PASPA) -- in its entirety -- as an unconstitutional bigfoot from the feds telling the states what kind of state laws they are or are not going to have.

And it wasn't a close call.

Every state is now, as of this morning, in a position to pass whatever legit statute they would please to have allowing for sports betting and/or lotteries.

Congress could still pass some kind of (unconstitutional) nation-wide ban on sports gaming (through the commerce clause; illegitimate as that would be); but good luck getting that kind of deal through Congress, especially given how such a blanket rule would literally put the state of Nevada out of business. Fat chance.

Clay has been extremely interested in the case, attended the oral arguments, and has some interesting takes: https://www.outkickthecoverage.com/supr ... -gambling/

At his link, discussion of each of these points.

1. Today’s decision leaves whether or not to permit sports gambling up to the individual states.
2. What kind of sports gambling will my state allow and will the federal government get involved?
3. This will be like alcohol sales, in that each state will have its own rules.
4. How will the state tax sports bets?
5. What about offshore sites?
6. How will sports broadcasts change?
7. What’s your ideal solution?

[Fife]

[Fife]

Amy Howe @ SCOTUSBlog: http://www.scotusblog.com/2018/05/opini ... bling-law/

The 10th Amendment provides that, if the Constitution does not either give a power to the federal government or take that power away from the states, that power is reserved for the states or the people themselves. The Supreme Court has long interpreted this provision to bar the federal government from “commandeering” the states to enforce federal laws or policies. Today the justices ruled that a federal law that bars states from legalizing sports betting violates the anti-commandeering doctrine. Their decision not only opens the door for states around the country to allow sports betting, but it also could give significantly more power to states generally, on issues ranging from the decriminalization of marijuana to sanctuary cities.

. . .

The Supreme Court agreed to consider the state’s constitutional challenge to PASPA, and today the court reversed. It explained that the PASPA provision that bars states from authorizing sports gambling violates the anti-commandeering doctrine because it “unequivocally dictates what a state legislature may and may not do.” “It is as if,” Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the majority, “federal officers were installed in state legislative chambers and were armed with the authority to stop legislators from voting on any offending proposals. A more direct affront to state sovereignty,” Alito concluded, “is not easy to imagine.”

As to Vegas shedding any tears, well lel: The economic impact of allowing sports betting cannot be understated: Legal sports betting in Las Vegas takes in over $5 billion each year, and most estimates put the value of illegal sports betting in the United States at up to $100 billion.

$100 Billion off the black market. That's $100 BILLION. McDonald's 2017 worldwide gross last year was $23 Billion. Target NA took in $72 Billion.


The Strip just got twice as long.

[Okeefenokee]

Eat the gamblers.

[clubgop]

PA and NJ I heard are going to do this by like Memorial day weekend. Many of the casinos could be read within hours of state approval. The casinos in the area are all owned by big corporations in Las Vegas so the systems are largely in place.

[Speaker to Animals]

One step closer to a Catholic nation.

[Fife]

From the venerable Lyle Denniston:

Broad new protection for states’ independence

Monday’s decision, settling a fight that had raged for years between the federal government and the state of New Jersey over casino gambling on sports, did not take away Congress’s power to regulate sports betting if it wished to do so directly. Nor did it impair Congress’s authority to put up federal money to induce states to curb such gambling.

What it did do, and did very clearly, was to tell Congress that it may not adopt a policy that it wants to initiate and then give state governments orders requiring them to implement that policy by passing state laws even if the states would rather not do so. Congress, it stressed, must take the responsibility itself if it wishes to enact federal policy.

Thus, the decision reinforced and even widened the constitutional notion that the Court has called the “anti-commandeering principle” – that is, a declaration that the national government simply cannot force states to stand in for federal officials as enforcers of federal policy choices.

For the first time, the Court explicitly rejected an argument that Congress violates that principle only if it coerces states into taking an explicit, affirmative action to enforce a federal requirement – the kind of compulsion that was forbidden by the 1992 and 1997 decisions. Congress, the new ruling emphasized, cannot command the states not to approve a policy that is different from what Congress wants.

This is an amazing case, and one that will be cited in big ones to follow.

[Ex-California]

So good to see a Bill of Rights Amendment actually being used instead of legislated away

[Speaker to Animals]

Imagine what is to come after Trump replaces two more justices.

[Fife]