5 ms·

U.S. Supreme Court Strikes Down Federal Sports-Wagering Ban

30 points by uptown 8y ago

8bitben 8y ago
Can't wait for the flood of e-sports betting sites - could be a big market in addition to the more traditional sports
- oxide 8y ago
  The flood is already here. I can bet, with a credit card, on basically any competitive game I can watch on Twitch. I have been for years now. I'm waiting for regulation floods, not more sketchy sites.
JohnJamesRambo 8y ago
I know the NBA is very interested in making gambling happen and they have some deep pockets to get it there and this is one of Adam Silver's main goals right now. From my listening to NBA podcasts about it, and of interest to HN users is that the NBA wants the technology to the point where people in the stands can bet on their smartphones about things as granular as "will X player make a three pointer on the next possession, etc."
- ksherlock 8y ago
  The law is weird all around... the NBA originally supported it. It was sponsored by NJ Senator/former NBA player Bill Bradley. It gave NJ a 1-year window to legalize sports gambling and be grandfathered in... which they declined to do at the time. The NBA now supports it. Trump supported repealing it while campaigning but the solicitor general opposed it at the supreme court...
widowlark 8y ago
Would this affect the outcome for InTrade?
epmatsw 8y ago
This is super interesting. Seems like the real ruling is that the federal government can’t compel states to implement/enforce non-federal laws. I wonder if that will affect things like the drinking age...
- Simulacra 8y ago
  Or marriage iguana !
- arkades 8y ago
  That's a bit off. The question in this case was regarding a federal law that "prohibits modification or repeal of state-law prohibitions." In short, "we are making a law that says you have to make a law." It's not about using the states to act as enforcement of federal laws, or to comply with federal laws - it's about commandeering their regulatory authority. And, I'd say correctly, the regulatory powers reserved to the states belong to, explicitly, the states. SCOTUS was quite correct in breaking this in half.
- rory096 8y ago
  For what it's worth, the National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984 was upheld by the Supreme Court in South Dakota v. Dole (1987), a case referenced extensively in the more recent NFIB v. Sebelius, the Obamacare challenge. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Dakota_v._Dole https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Dakota_v._Dole [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Federation_of_Independent_Business_v._Sebelius https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Federation_of_Indepen...
- Eridrus 8y ago
  This feels like a pretty weird ruling that is all about the details of how the federal law was enacted, rather than the intent, i.e. if the folks writing the 1992 law were told of this ruling they probably could have written a law that achieved the desired results and not run afoul of this ruling.
  - Steel_Phoenix 8y ago
    That's the way it's supposed to work. The Supreme Court isn't interested in whether a law is effective, just whether it exceeds Constitutional restrictions on power. It's up to Congress to make sure things work, and if the court breaks something, Congress can often just rewrite things in a bit less heavy handed fashion and get things working again.
Simulacra 8y ago
I never quite understood the objections to this. As long as someone isn’t using credit cards, and there’s maybe some limits on how much they can bet per day, so they don’t totally sell the house, I don’t quite understand the objections or restrictions on sports betting. I never quite understood the objections to this. As long as someone isn’t using credit cards, and there’s maybe some limits on how much they can bet per day, so they don’t totally sell the house, I don’t quite understand the objections or restrictions on sports betting. Potential revenue for states, not to mention for some of the gamblers, I think far outweighs the risks of abuse.
- dpark 8y ago
  The “sell the house” scenario is already possible with any other gambling. No reason sports gambling should be different from that perspective.
- larrik 8y ago
  The laws aren't for protecting the gamblers, they are for protecting the sport. The concern being that if gambling on sports is a real industry, then the outcomes of the games may get artificially "adjusted" by nefarious parties.
  - andr3w321 8y ago
    Billions are already wagered offshore on all major sports. Making it illegal just makes it more difficult to protect the integrity of the game.
    - larrik 8y ago
      I'm not saying you're wrong, but that's not the kind of thinking the US government has historically used.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

30 points by uptown 8y ago

8bitben 8y ago

Can't wait for the flood of e-sports betting sites - could be a big market in addition to the more traditional sports

oxide 8y ago
The flood is already here. I can bet, with a credit card, on basically any competitive game I can watch on Twitch. I have been for years now. I'm waiting for regulation floods, not more sketchy sites.

JohnJamesRambo 8y ago

I know the NBA is very interested in making gambling happen and they have some deep pockets to get it there and this is one of Adam Silver's main goals right now. From my listening to NBA podcasts about it, and of interest to HN users is that the NBA wants the technology to the point where people in the stands can bet on their smartphones about things as granular as "will X player make a three pointer on the next possession, etc."

ksherlock 8y ago
The law is weird all around... the NBA originally supported it. It was sponsored by NJ Senator/former NBA player Bill Bradley. It gave NJ a 1-year window to legalize sports gambling and be grandfathered in... which they declined to do at the time. The NBA now supports it. Trump supported repealing it while campaigning but the solicitor general opposed it at the supreme court...

widowlark 8y ago

Would this affect the outcome for InTrade?

epmatsw 8y ago

This is super interesting. Seems like the real ruling is that the federal government can’t compel states to implement/enforce non-federal laws. I wonder if that will affect things like the drinking age...

Simulacra 8y ago
Or marriage iguana !
arkades 8y ago
That's a bit off. The question in this case was regarding a federal law that "prohibits modification or repeal of state-law prohibitions." In short, "we are making a law that says you have to make a law." It's not about using the states to act as enforcement of federal laws, or to comply with federal laws - it's about commandeering their regulatory authority. And, I'd say correctly, the regulatory powers reserved to the states belong to, explicitly, the states. SCOTUS was quite correct in breaking this in half.
rory096 8y ago
For what it's worth, the National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984 was upheld by the Supreme Court in South Dakota v. Dole (1987), a case referenced extensively in the more recent NFIB v. Sebelius, the Obamacare challenge. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Dakota_v._Dole https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Dakota_v._Dole [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Federation_of_Independent_Business_v._Sebelius https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Federation_of_Indepen...
Eridrus 8y ago
This feels like a pretty weird ruling that is all about the details of how the federal law was enacted, rather than the intent, i.e. if the folks writing the 1992 law were told of this ruling they probably could have written a law that achieved the desired results and not run afoul of this ruling.
- Steel_Phoenix 8y ago
  That's the way it's supposed to work. The Supreme Court isn't interested in whether a law is effective, just whether it exceeds Constitutional restrictions on power. It's up to Congress to make sure things work, and if the court breaks something, Congress can often just rewrite things in a bit less heavy handed fashion and get things working again.

Simulacra 8y ago

I never quite understood the objections to this. As long as someone isn’t using credit cards, and there’s maybe some limits on how much they can bet per day, so they don’t totally sell the house, I don’t quite understand the objections or restrictions on sports betting. I never quite understood the objections to this. As long as someone isn’t using credit cards, and there’s maybe some limits on how much they can bet per day, so they don’t totally sell the house, I don’t quite understand the objections or restrictions on sports betting. Potential revenue for states, not to mention for some of the gamblers, I think far outweighs the risks of abuse.

dpark 8y ago
The “sell the house” scenario is already possible with any other gambling. No reason sports gambling should be different from that perspective.
larrik 8y ago
The laws aren't for protecting the gamblers, they are for protecting the sport. The concern being that if gambling on sports is a real industry, then the outcomes of the games may get artificially "adjusted" by nefarious parties.
- andr3w321 8y ago
  Billions are already wagered offshore on all major sports. Making it illegal just makes it more difficult to protect the integrity of the game.
  - larrik 8y ago
    I'm not saying you're wrong, but that's not the kind of thinking the US government has historically used.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]