SCOTUS May Let States Legalize Sports Gambling (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter justsomedude
- Start date
DJ Mack
Flush
I'm a huge SCOTUS nerd and I love following major cases. One can never read too much into the oral arguments but this case brings out some ideological paradoxes.
To wit, the more conservative wing appears to agree the law is unconstitutional on states' rights grounds, the outcome of which would be more legalized gambling. Socially, conservatives tend to be more likely to oppose vices like gambling. Meanwhile the more liberal wing usually gives broad deference to the federal government to set national standards over the prerogative of the states and so would tend to support this law, even though legal gambling tends to fit more into the liberal camp, with organized labor heavily entrenched.
How can this be? Well, it just goes to show that to SCOTUS this case isn't about gambling at all. It's all about the tenth amendment and the limits of Congress making the states do something. Can't wait to get some time to dig into the transcript. Meanwhile here's some good analysis for consideration: http://www.scotusblog.com/2017/12/argument-analysis-justices-seem-side-state-sports-betting/
To wit, the more conservative wing appears to agree the law is unconstitutional on states' rights grounds, the outcome of which would be more legalized gambling. Socially, conservatives tend to be more likely to oppose vices like gambling. Meanwhile the more liberal wing usually gives broad deference to the federal government to set national standards over the prerogative of the states and so would tend to support this law, even though legal gambling tends to fit more into the liberal camp, with organized labor heavily entrenched.
How can this be? Well, it just goes to show that to SCOTUS this case isn't about gambling at all. It's all about the tenth amendment and the limits of Congress making the states do something. Can't wait to get some time to dig into the transcript. Meanwhile here's some good analysis for consideration: http://www.scotusblog.com/2017/12/argument-analysis-justices-seem-side-state-sports-betting/
pokerplayingpisces
Full House
Yeah, read about this on ESPN’s website this morning. Looks like the NBA and MLB would like the Feds to put together some framework, and let the states go from there, if they decide to legalize/offer sports betting in their state;
http://es.pn/2zKyv4l
The NFL is being the NFL. Sticking their heads in the sand, pretending that people don’t wager on their games, and that the issue will go away by itself.
Also saw another article on ESPN, on how the NBA is lining itself up to profit from legalized sports betting;
http://es.pn/2AA5z2E
http://es.pn/2zKyv4l
The NFL is being the NFL. Sticking their heads in the sand, pretending that people don’t wager on their games, and that the issue will go away by itself.
Also saw another article on ESPN, on how the NBA is lining itself up to profit from legalized sports betting;
http://es.pn/2AA5z2E
I heard the analysis that the sports leagues really want gambling, but ona nationwide federal approval instead of a patchwork state’s rights results. I’m not sure how opposing the patchwork states rights approach gets them there faster, but I’m not a lawyer.
FDLmold
Royal Flush
As a sports league, a national regulatory framework means you only need one set of lawyers in one office to deal with the rules. A state-by-state patchwork means a different set of rules in each state, and some states with no laws or rules at all, which is more burdensome for a league to deal with.
I'm a "states' rights" kind of guy, so I hope New Jersey wins. The federal government needs being knocked down a few pegs.
I'm a "states' rights" kind of guy, so I hope New Jersey wins. The federal government needs being knocked down a few pegs.
DJ Mack
Flush
Because once something is entrenched at the state level it's that much more difficult to come up with a national standard that will attract the requisite votes in Congress. Every state, via its representatives, will seek to protect its own way of doing things. Which means Congress will spend its time on other pursuits.
If you can legalize and regulate a market that doesn't officially exist yet it's a much easier lift politically. I've heard some say that legalizing marijuana at the federal level is even less likely than it was five years ago because the states that have it want to protect their business model. True or not, I don't know, but it makes sense.
I can see arguments for and against a national gaming standard. Casino gambling is the domain of the states. Every state with gambling has a control commission of some sort with the exclusive power to set standards and make rules, so what's the compelling reason to treat sports gambling any differently? On the other hand the potential for mischief within the games and leagues themselves is very much an interstate concern, whereas the rules for blackjack and cheque colors within any given state are not.
SixSpeedFury
Full House
So if this comes to pass, will online gambling be next in line?
FDLmold
Royal Flush
States are free to allow online poker. New Jersey and Nevada both started theirs after UIGEA and the feds did not say a peep. Not sure about online gambling.
Possibly but from what I hear, a case against federally illegal marijuana is most likely to be next if the sports betting federal law is overturned.
DJ Mack
Flush
Assuming the sports betting case results in the law being overturned I think it will have no bearing on the federal prohibition of marijuana. This case is very much about how Congress chose to outlaw something. It's kind of like if you have nice chips that I want. I have two ways of getting them. I can offer you a price that you're willing to pay and you can sell them to me. Or I can break into your house and take them. The outcome is the same - either way I get the chips I want. But how I get them makes all the difference in the world.
The crux of the matter is that Congress directed the states to prohibit sports betting and that's a violation of the tenth amendment because it commandeers states' authority for federal purposes. Granted, the federal government is free to regulate interstate commerce, and nobody is arguing that sports and any related betting wouldn't constitute interstate commerce. The problem is that Congress hasn't regulated interstate commerce; it simply told the states what their laws must be and washed its hands of the affair, leaving states to pass laws and bear the cost of enforcing them. Yes, Congress can incentivize certain state behavior in how it allots federal funds (e.g. minimum drinking age of 21 via highways funds), just like I can incentivize you to sell me your chips by offering a stupidly high price but that's not dictating to the states what their laws must be.
When it comes to marijuana, it is a federal offense and the states aren't compelled to maintain laws one way or another. That's constitutionally sound and in fact New Jersey conceded that it would have no case if Congress had simply made sports betting a federal offense. Like many things in life it all comes down to process, not outcome.
I would.
When I first learned about the Supreme Court and the commerce clause, I was appalled. I’m still not over it.
Create an account or login to comment
You must be a member in order to leave a comment
Create account
Create an account and join our community. It's easy!
Log in
Already have an account? Log in here.
Similar threads
