Posted on 05/14/2018 12:26:01 PM PDT by servo1969
The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 to strike down the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (PAPSA) that outlawed sports gambling in most states.
From Fox News:
The 1992 law had barred gambling on football, basketball, baseball and other sports with some exceptions, like allowing people to wager on a single game only in Nevada. The Supreme Court ruling now gives states the go-ahead to legalize sports betting if they want.
"The legalization of sports gambling requires an important policy choice, but the choice is not ours to make," the opinion by Justice Samuel Alito said.
"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," the ruling said.
One research firm estimated before the ruling that if the Supreme Court were to strike down the law, 32 states would likely offer sports betting within five years.
PAPSA "bars state-authorized sports gambling with exceptions for Nevada, Montana, Oregon and Delaware, states that had approved some form of sports wagering before the law took effect."
The originated in New Jersey after "casinos in Atlantic City" started to lose revenue. In 2011, voters in the state "amended its state Constitution to allow sports betting, and the state Legislature soon passed a law authorizing it." The major sports leagues retaliated and challenged the law.
New Jersey tried again in 2014 when the state partly repealed "its existing bans on sports betting to allow it at racetracks and casinos." The leagues sued the state again and won.
Over a dozen states showed support for New Jersey. They "argued that Congress exceeded its authority when it passed" PAPSA and that while "the Constitution allows Congress to pass laws barring wagering on sports," legislators "can't require states to keep sports gambling prohibitions in place."
The NFL, MLB, NHL, and NBA urged the Supreme Court to uphold the federal law. The leagues believe "that New Jersey's gambling expansion would hurt the integrity of their games."
Like people really care about a law that prohibits them from gambling. After all, the American Gaming Association (AGA) has estimated that citizens "illegally wager about $150 billion on sports each year." Other analysts believe that if sports betting expanded and became legal the "industry could generate at least $7 billion annually."
The AGA released this statement on the ruling:
"Today's decision is a victory for the millions of Americans who seek to bet on sports in a safe and regulated manner. According to a Washington Post survey, a solid 55 percent of Americans believe it's time to end the federal ban on sports betting. Today's ruling makes it possible for states and sovereign tribal nations to give Americans what they want: an open, transparent, and responsible market for sports betting. Through smart, efficient regulation this new market will protect consumers, preserve the integrity of the games we love, empower law enforcement to fight illegal gambling, and generate new revenue for states, sporting bodies, broadcasters and many others. The AGA stands ready to work with all stakeholders - states, tribes, sports leagues, and law enforcement - to create a new regulatory environment that capitalizes on this opportunity to engage fans and boost local economies."
Pacific Legal Foundation attorney Jonathan Wood emailed this statement:
This morning, the Supreme Court struck down the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (PASPA) as unconstitutional. The opinion, authored by Justice Alito, is a major win for federalism. Justice Alito's opinion explains that PASPA, which forbids states from "authorizing" or "licensing" sports betting, "unequivocally dictates what a state legislature may and may not do." "It is as if federal officers were installed in state legislative chambers and were armed with the authority to stop legislators from voting on any offending proposals," he continued. In a nation committed to federalism, with independent federal and state authority both answerable to the people, neither one can dictate to the other. To hold otherwise, would have undermined a key structural protection of liberty and democratic accountability. By striking down PASPA in its entirety, the Court placed a big bet on our Constitution's system of federalism.
States will probably "move quickly to establish sports betting as a means to increase their respective coffers." West Virginia Lottery general counsel Danielle Boyd thinks that her state could develop sports betting within 90 days of the repeal.
Other states may not have it as easy. Pennsylvania's legislation for sports betting "requires a one-time license fee of up to $10 million, along with a tax of as much as 34% on gross receipts. AGA senior vice president of public affairs Sara Slane said actions like this "could be a non-starter for potential operators." But with the repeal, she thinks "some states will have to go back and structure a policy that will allow operators to want to come to the state."
Aside from Vegas and Tahoe, the greatest negative impact may be the off shore on line betting sites.
This also screws the NFL as their Vegas gambling partners will no longer be exclusive.
I hope Congress bans it altogether. Gambling sucks money out of the economy in a non-productive way. It leaves broken homes and a trail of bad debts in it's wake.
Meanwhile Boudreaux reported back to the Louisiana State Police on his investigation of Cock Fighting:
Get weary of half assed reporting when it comes to court decisions or the way legislation gets reported when the reporters don’t list who and how those making the decision voted. There were 9 judges who participated in making this decision and the writer lists only one.
1992 law. Not saying I disagree, but why is it only now unconstitutional? Was the Constitution amended sometime recently? Why didn’t the Supreme Court strike it down in the 1990s?
I don’t know for sure. But odds are nobody filed suit against this law back then. So if nobody filed suit back then, the Supreme Court would have no basis to render an opinion.
“I hope Congress bans it altogether. Gambling sucks money out of the economy in a non-productive way. It leaves broken homes and a trail of bad debts in it’s wake.”
Or you can take your money and run ads saying the same thing and not look to the state to control if a fool and his money ought to be parted from each other.
Some times the state really should step in and protect fools. Not always, but sometimes.
There is a reason that most of the country outlawed gambling in the mid 1800’s.
SCOTUS doesn’t just pick laws to overturn. Somebody has to bring a case before them. Someone finally did.
There is no delegated power given the federal to regulate things that merely affect commerce among the States but which aren’t factually commerce among the several States.
And that ignores the power given was not in fact one meant to boss around private persons or entities when they chose to engage in commerce but only to prevent the States from using their police and tax powers from mucking up commerce among the several States in order to give sweetheart deals to their own Citizens. To make it regular, not administrated.
“ ALITO, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and KENNEDY, THOMAS, KAGAN, and GORSUCH, JJ., joined, and in which BREYER, J., joined as to all but Part VI–B. THOMAS, J., filed a concur- ring opinion. BREYER, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and dis- senting in part. GINSBURG, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which SO- TOMAYOR, J., joined, and in which BREYER, J., joined in part. “
Note that Kagan (and Breyer, with a small exception) joined the conservative majority-- they are going to try to use this precedent later this term to protect "sanctuary state" laws, by holding that Congress can order illegal aliens to be deported, but can't order the states to help out in that effort.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.