SCOTUS: States can legalize sports betting (1 Viewer)

[DJ Mack]

There's been several threads about NJ's challenge to the federal sports betting law. I don't see that anyone has posted an update so here goes. In a 6-3 decision announced this morning, the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act has been struck down. I've not read the ruling so I'm not clear on if the entire law was struck down, or just the provision that required states to prohibit sports gambling. More to come later...

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/05/14/supreme-court-strikes-down-sports-gambling-law.html

The decision is here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-476_dbfi.pdf

For those SCOTUS nerds I'm sure SCOTUSblog.com will have some comprehensive coverage later today.

 

[rowlin]

Come senators, congressmen,
Please heed the call.
Don’t stand in the doorway,
Don’t block up the hall.

 

[FDLmold]

Heck yes. My Christian morals balk a little at widespread sports gambling, but sometimes I want to put $5 or $10 on a game, and the libertarian part of me says I should have that right.

 

[FDLmold]

When I get time I need to see who the 3 in dissent were.

 

[justsomedude]

Keep in mind, this just eliminates the federal law... states can now ban (or legalize) sports betting directly, if they so choose.

Per the ruling:

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.

From what I can find, Ginsburg and Sotomayor dissented, and Breyer dissented "in part" (whatever that means).

 

[Lemonzest]

I am really into betting on sports and specifically MMA/UFC. I also like casinos in general and playing poker...

However, I actually think sports betting in an organized way should be illegal. The problem I have with it is not religious or rooted in the ethics of gambling. My issue is I think it is essentially exploitation of the poor.

In general I don't think it is good for society. There is nothing stopping a person from betting 20 bucks on the game between friends....that can never be stopped by the authorities.

When gambling becomes organized then I feel like it is corporations just exploiting the lower class and less astute among us.

EDIT: Don't remember where I heard this quote: "gambling is a tax on people that are bad at math"

 

[jadillon]

For those SCOTUS nerds I'm sure SCOTUSblog.com will have some comprehensive coverage later today.

Hey - I resemble that remark!

 

[upNdown]

When I get time I need to see who the 3 in dissent were.

Ginsberg and Sotomayor dissented. As far as I can tell from my skimming, they feel like Congress can prohibit sports gambling, and maybe will, despite the fact that this particular law was flawed.

 

[ekricket]

I

When gambling becomes organized then I feel like it is corporations just exploiting the lower class and less astute among us.

EDIT: Don't remember where I heard this quote: "gambling is a tax on people that are bad at math"

Yeah, it will be a sad day when corporations start exploiting the masses.

And alcohol is just a way to keep the poor people happy, and cigarettes are just to keep them occupied, and it goes on and on.

Poor people just need to start listening to those that know what’s good for them.

 

[timsta007]

EDIT: Don't remember where I heard this quote: "gambling is a tax on people that are bad at math"

I believe the original quote was "The Lottery is a tax on people that are bad at math" since most lotteries include a substantial state tax revenue component, but same idea.

 

[DJ Mack]

From what I can find, Ginsburg and Sotomayor dissented, and Breyer dissented "in part"

Breyer dissented with part VI-B of the ruling, which from what I'm reading is the "OK it's unconstitutional, what's the remedy?" part of the opinion. So he was with the majority in finding the statute unconstitutional, but he had disagreement with the wholesale striking down of the statute. He (and Ginsburg) would have rather left portions of the law intact, something the majority clearly felt wasn't practical.

Whatever. In any event it's an interesting mixup of the judges. If you count Breyer for the majority, which he actually was for the most part, this was a 7-2 ruling. I also note that the majority was clear that Congress could outlaw sports betting directly if it chooses to do so. It's just the way they went about it with this law that doesn't work.

From the majority opinion:

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. PASPA “regulate(s) state governments’ regulation” of their citizens, New York, 505 U. S., at 166. The Constitution gives Congress no such power.

 

[jadillon]

Ginsberg and Sotomayor dissented. As far as I can tell from my skimming, they feel like Congress can prohibit sports gambling, and maybe will, despite the fact that this particular law was flawed.

Yes, I think Congress could make sports gambling both illegal and criminal in the U.S. But to do so Congress would almost certainly have to prohibit sports gambling throughout the U.S. and this includes Nevada. So that is not happening unless Vegas has a change of heart. The Act struck down effectively preserved Nevada sports gambling, but prevented it anywhere else. Thus, the need for the twisted and contorted things in the law that ran afoul of things like “anticommandeering”.

They could also make it illegal unless permitted and regulated by a state, but then NJ is golden and the Nevada monopoly on Sports Gambling is over.

 

[Lemonzest]

Yeah, it will be a sad day when corporations start exploiting the masses.

And alcohol is just a way to keep the poor people happy, and cigarettes are just to keep them occupied, and it goes on and on.

Poor people just need to start listening to those that know what’s good for them.

Just to clarify. I think having places like Atlantic City, Reno, and Vegas is fine. If people want to seek out gambling they can go holiday in these locations. However, moving in a direction where there is a casino and sportsbook in ever town is not going to be a positive for society.

I am just trying to see the other side of the coin. I would personally love it if there was a casino that offered poker and a good sportsbook in my town.

The funny thing is in Canada making parlay's is legal. I have never done it but I hear you can go to gas stations and make a parlay bet of 2 NBA games but straight wagers (moneyline bet on 1 outcome) is illegal.

None of our casinos (that I know of) have sportsbooks.

 

[SixSpeedFury]

I am really into betting on sports and specifically MMA/UFC. I also like casinos in general and playing poker...

However, I actually think sports betting in an organized way should be illegal. The problem I have with it is not religious or rooted in the ethics of gambling. My issue is I think it is essentially exploitation of the poor.

In general I don't think it is good for society. There is nothing stopping a person from betting 20 bucks on the game between friends....that can never be stopped by the authorities.

When gambling becomes organized then I feel like it is corporations just exploiting the lower class and less astute among us.

EDIT: Don't remember where I heard this quote: "gambling is a tax on people that are bad at math"

Well, the same thing can be said for online poker if/when they finally legalize it, and you'd be in favor of it, correct? Vices will always be there, it's up to the person to control themselves.

 

[DJ Mack]

Just to clarify. I think having places like Atlantic City, Reno, and Vegas is fine. If people want to seek out gambling they can go holiday in these locations. However, moving in a direction where there is a casino and sportsbook in ever town is not going to be a positive for society.

And that's essentially what this ruling says. Every state and local government is free to allow or prohibit sports betting within its borders. Constitutional trouble arises when Congress decides to get involved because under the 14th Amendment (equal protection) it's very difficult to prohibit something nationwide but then allow exceptions based on past practice. That'd be like saying Congress can pass a law making it illegal to discriminate during hiring, except within the State of Texas because Texans have a long and proud history of doing so.

Could Congress outlaw sports betting? Yes. Could Congress allow sports betting in Nevada but not in Illinois? Not likely. Could Congress regulate sports betting, so long as equal protection isn't violated and the rules apply uniformly nationwide? Yes.

 

[FDLmold]

The overpriced grocery store in the bad part of town exploits the poor. And that payday advance business is not setting up shop in the suburbs. If you are poor in the USA you have more opportunity here than anywhere in the world to get out of it. You also have more ways to mess it up and stay right where you are. (IMO)

The PEPSI legislation (or whatever acronym) was crap. Good on NJ for fighting it. Ban it everywhere or not at all. Your Monopoly was good while it lasted Nevada.

 

[Lemonzest]

Well, the same thing can be said for online poker if/when they finally legalize it, and you'd be in favor of it, correct? Vices will always be there, it's up to the person to control themselves.

I am fine with online poker being illegal. Similar to the sportsbetting example...people can still play poker with friends.

Sure it is up to people to control themselves. However, at the same time we as a society get to make choices about what we want to be legal/illegal based on impact to society at large.

Cigarettes for example, the way they are being produced now by corporations should be illegal. The large tobacco companies have spent loads of cash on R&D to come up with the most addictive recipe possible. If we weigh the pros and cons I don't see many pros here. Cigars or rolling your own is fine as you are actually just smoking tobacco.

 

[ekricket]

Just to clarify. I think having places like Atlantic City, Reno, and Vegas is fine. If people want to seek out gambling they can go holiday in these locations. However, moving in a direction where there is a casino and sportsbook in ever town is not going to be a positive for society.

I am just trying to see the other side of the coin. I would personally love it if there was a casino that offered poker and a good sportsbook in my town.

The funny thing is in Canada making parlay's is legal. I have never done it but I hear you can go to gas stations and make a parlay bet of 2 NBA games but straight wagers (moneyline bet on 1 outcome) is illegal.

None of our casinos (that I know of) have sportsbooks.

I’ve lived with with it for years in Oklahoma, casinos in every town, Poker, table games, slots, horse betting, ( but dice not allowed) still got plenty of poor people. It’s not poor people who go there, they have better things to do with their money. And the ones that don’t it wouldn’t make a difference how much money they had, they would still blow it in cars or whatever.

 

[Lemonzest]

I’ve lived with with it for years in Oklahoma, casinos in every town, Poker, table games, slots, horse betting, ( but dice not allowed) still got plenty of poor people. It’s not poor people who go there, they have better things to do with their money. And the ones that don’t it wouldn’t make a difference how much money they had, they would still blow it in cars or whatever.

My cousin's wife is a problem gambling counselor and I hear some pretty brutal stories. It is not just the poor, there are people with a predisposition to problem gambling, similar to alcoholism. The funny thing about it is my cousin's wife is actually paid by the BC Gaming Commission...it is their way of giving back and dealing with the collateral damage.

I forget the stat...but I remember hearing the percentage of profit the casinos get from problem gamblers vs. casual gamblers. The casino profit from problem gamblers was something insane like 80-90%

Trying to legalize gambling is just not a cause I would promote in the name of libertarian values.

 

[bluegill]

I would personally love it if there was a casino that offered poker and a good sportsbook in my town.

I am fine with online poker being illegal. Similar to the sportsbetting example...people can still play poker with friends.

So it's "OK" to have poker and sports betting as long as it is convenient for you, but it shouldn't be as convenient for me?

 

[Lemonzest]

So it "OK" to have poker and sports betting as long as it is convenient for you, but it shouldn't be as convenient for me?

To clarify, my point was that I personally would enjoy having access to poker and sportsbooks but would be fine if the government made them illegal for the greater good of society at large.

Its the same idea as not drinking beer in front of a recovering alcoholic. If we want to be ultra libertarian about it then yeah we all have the right to do what we want. I just think the cost/benefit is skewed the wrong way for legalizing gaming.

 

[Sal Bandini]

Just to clarify. I think having places like Atlantic City, Reno, and Vegas is fine. If people want to seek out poker they can go holiday in these locations. However, moving in a direction where there is a casino and home poker game in ever town is not going to be a positive for society.

FIFY

 

[ekricket]

To clarify, my point was that I personally would enjoy having access to poker and sportsbooks but would be fine if the government made them illegal for the greater good of society at large.

Its the same idea as not drinking beer in front of a recovering alcoholic. If we want to be ultra libertarian about it then yeah we all have the right to do what we want. I just think the cost/benefit is skewed the wrong way for legalizing gaming.

My cousin's wife is a problem gambling counselor and I hear some pretty brutal stories. It is not just the poor, there are people with a predisposition to problem gambling, similar to alcoholism. The funny thing about it is my cousin's wife is actually paid by the BC Gaming Commission...it is their way of giving back and dealing with the collateral damage.

I forget the stat...but I remember hearing the percentage of profit the casinos get from problem gamblers vs. casual gamblers. The casino profit from problem gamblers was something insane like 80-90%

Trying to legalize gambling is just not a cause I would promote in the name of libertarian values.

I wonder what percentage of alcohol producers make their money from alcoholics? Or Hershey’s makes from overweight people? Or gym owners make from people that pay but don’t use their services? Or that taxis make from poor people who can’t afford to have cars?

 

[DoubleEagle]

You can't legislate morality.

 

[ekricket]

You can't legislate morality.

Agree. Whose morality is the standard? I hear arguments “for the good of society”. Whose version of society?

 

[Blaster]

Alito went out of his way to remind Congress they can act to ban sports betting .. so whatever law they struck down he feels another would work....

 

[DoubleEagle]

Agree. Whose morality is the standard? I hear arguments “for the good of society”. Whose version of society?

Exactly.

 

[FDLmold]

I give Congress about zero chance to ban sports betting nationwide.

 

[Lemonzest]

I wonder what percentage of alcohol producers make their money from alcoholics? Or Hershey’s makes from overweight people? Or gym owners make from people that pay but don’t use their services? Or that taxis make from poor people who can’t afford to have cars?

We are talking about the possible harm incurred from an addiction. Taxi's and gym's aren't really in the same ballpark. Alcohol definitely is a relevant example. To a lesser extent chocolate (sugar) is addictive but the potential harm is on a lesser scale (albeit more widespread).

We continually make changes in the hopes of improving society. We have come a long way since the 80's. I remember being on an international flight as a young kid and the lady sitting next to me smoking like a chimney. Now we have removed much of the advertising around cigarettes and have them sold on blacked out shelves. Smoking isn't allowed in restaurants anymore (at least in Canada).

More recently there has been push back on sugary drinks. I don't know about the US but here it is common to see pop/soda sold in smaller cans. Also we have seen "sugary drink taxes" come into effect in an effort to combat obesity.

The problem with putting the complete onus of responsibility on the individual is people aren't acting rationally when addiction is involved.

 

[ekricket]

The problem with putting the complete onus of responsibility on the individual is people aren't acting rationally when addiction is involved.

Societies typically institutionalize irrational people.
Your call it “addiction” but they call it a different way of life. Just because it’s different than yours, or they don’t act like you think they should, or they spend their money differently than you, or it even shortens their lives shouldnt give you the right to decide “what’s best” for them. Unless you are talking about institutionalizing them of course.