10 ms·

From 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

• afarrell 8y ago
  > per drinking ages... It is worth noting that alcohol regulations might be a bit of a special case. It not merely a federal crime but is unconstitutional for a corporation or individual to transport alcohol into a state in violation of the laws of that state.
  • jessriedel 8y ago
    Although it's true there are lingering effects from the repeal of prohibition, I don't believe the Supreme Court's ruling on the constitutionality of the national drinking age law drew on that. Rather, I think it was just the difference between directly dictating state law and making funds conditional on it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Dakota_v._Dole#Decision https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Dakota_v._Dole#Decision
• ivl 8y ago
  > drinking ages The federal government used a bit of a loophole here. Instead of regulating individual states, they simply set a drinking age of 21 as a requirement, else they'll lose 10 percent of their federal highway funds.
  • jessriedel 8y ago
    ...hence the rest of my sentence? Or are you just clarifying for other people?
    • ivl 8y ago
      Purely clarifying. It's kind of a unique tax incentive for the states isn't it? I'm not sure of other legislation that works under the same principles.
      • dzdt 8y ago
        Education law. The federal government is requiring states to comply with its mandates or lose funding.
        • kgwgk 8y ago
          Also Medicaid expansion.
      • jessriedel 8y ago
        Just highway funds have been used by the federal government to enforce two other rules on the states: speed limits and motorcycle helmets. There have been attempts to also make national no-texting-and-driving rules. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/07/four-times-the-government-held-highway-funding-hostage/454167/ https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/07/four-ti... Trump has tried to restrict federal funding to "sanctuary cities" as a way to coerce them into prosecuting illegal immigrants. It was struck down as not passing the South Dakota test, but he may try again. http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/trump-executive-order-sanctuary-cities-funding-federal-judge-ruling-1.4085685 http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/trump-executive-order-sanctuary... The federal government also prohibits states from stopping federal funding of Planed Parenthood, which arguably cross-subsidizes (though does not directly fund) abortion. https://qz.com/863101/title-x-obama-enacts-a-law-mandating-that-states-cannot-withhold-federal-funds-from-planned-parenthood/ https://qz.com/863101/title-x-obama-enacts-a-law-mandating-t...
• sandworm101 8y ago
  Essentially this is an extension of DCC principals. Where the state has power to regulate, but actively chooses not so to do, another government cannot usurp. This is SCOTUS throwing down a gauntlet. Sports gambling, virtually all of which being online, is ripe for commerce clause regulation. Congress knows how it can take the reigns if it wants to. SCOTUS is saying it isn't going to accept half-hearted attempts to regulate in this area... in full knowledge that a serious legislative effort in this area is near-impossible in the current climate. This is the supreme court asserting itself, showing that with the legislature so weakened it can exercise control over national policies. imho.
  • jessriedel 8y ago
    > This is SCOTUS throwing down a gauntlet....This is the supreme court asserting itself, In general, I don't find unified personifications of groups of disagreeing humans to be very illuminating. Do you have any evidence this particular ruling is a coordinated action by the justices of the Supreme Court to communicate anything beyond their explicit decision to anyone? Or are you just speculating?
    • sandworm101 8y ago
      You seriously think that the various branches of the US government aren't in a constant power struggle? Such conflict underpins the very American concept of checks and balances. As I said in another post: This isn't about allowing people to gamble or not. This is isn't even about deciding who has the power to regulate gambling as both levels of government can if they want. This is the court reminding everyone who gets to referee in this game.
      • jessriedel 8y ago
        Foxes (as a species) and hawks (as a species) are in a power struggle for who gets to eat the rabbits, but this does not mean that hawks are coordinating with each other to do anything, nor that the hawks are trying to communicate anything to the foxes even though information flows between them.
• MBCook 8y ago
  Others have pointed out the drinking age situation. My understanding of this case: Congress can say ‘sports betting is illegal’, but they didn’t. They said ‘states much make sports betting illegal’. Congress doesn’t have the power to force states to pass laws, so the law is unconstitutional. They could have done what they did in the alcohol situation (or many others) and said ‘if you don’t make sports betting illegal you don’t get law enforcement money from the feds’ or something like that. That would have been (presumptively) constitutional. If the terms are too onerous the law could have been struck down. But instead they used a power they clearly don’t have. Interesting it survived this long. Does anyone know why they didn’t just ban it directly instead of trying to make states do it? Was that the only way to give Nevada an exemption?
  • dfxm12 8y ago
    Interesting it survived this long. NJ has been fighting this for almost 10 years. They were facing their biggest opposition from the sports leagues. It just goes to show the political sway the NFL, NCAA and MLB have over the government.
    • pessimizer 8y ago
      > It just goes to show the political sway the NFL, NCAA and MLB have over the government. And the established gambling industry. They could have simply made sports betting illegal, instead of passing a law that enables current donors to continue doing it, but forces new e-businesses, frequently incorporated outside of the country, to stop.
  • jessriedel 8y ago
    > Interesting it survived this long. Not just interesting but discouraging, in my opinion. This unconstitutional rule affected billions of dollars of commerce for a quarter century. The legislators who passed it and the president who signed it (G.H.W. Bush) face no repercussions, so there's no disincentive for future law-makers to do similar things in the future. I'm not sure I'd support something so extreme as having court review of unchallenged law, but it makes me consider it...
• tmaly 8y ago
  while this is about anti-commandeering doctrine, I often wonder if they should revisit the expansion of the commerce clause that came about by the famous "stitch in time that saved nine". To me, how case law enshrines coerced decisions in the court, is something that should be addressed.
• raiyu 8y ago
  The main idea is that Congress can decide if it is legal or not, but to say it's illegal everywhere except for Nevada makes it a non-federal statute as they are arbitrarily deciding that some state gets an exception, making it non constitutional. That is why it was stricken. If it said it was illegal everywhere, then the supreme court would have upheld that.
  • jessriedel 8y ago
    > they are arbitrarily deciding that some state gets an exception, making it non constitutional. > ...That is why it was stricken Do you have quote from the decision to support this? It seems to conflict with what I excerpted and the analysis I've seen.
    • T-hawk 8y ago
      It wasn't arbitrary. The states that had pre-existing laws kept them. The original decision prevented states from passing new laws to enable gambling, but didn't strike down or repeal existing laws, thus those states essentially got grandfathered in. Media reports like to spin it as "sports gambling is illegal except in XYZ states", to make it look like favoritism and the story inciteful, but really the only thing distinguishing those states is legacy code.
      • jessriedel 8y ago
        I think you're disagreeing with raiyu, not me?
  • pdabbadabba 8y ago
    I don't think this is correct. As I read it, the issue was that, as others have said, the federal government attempted to regulate what laws a state could pass (which is related to a broader body of law about federal laws that compel states* to enact certain laws or to implement federal laws). Note, however, that this not to say that congress can't make its own laws and that, if it does, they would override state laws. Maybe one way of summing this up that makes more sense of the distinction is this: Congress can make laws that regulate behavior as a general matter (subject to other constitutional restrictions), but cannot regulate directly the behavior of state governments themselves. It's unusual for congress to do the former but not the latter, but that appears to have been the case here.
• drone 8y ago
  It's right there in the beginning of the opinion: The Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (PASPA) makes it unlawful for a State or its subdivisions “to sponsor, operate, advertise, promote, license, or authorize by law or compact . . . a lottery, sweepstakes, or other betting, gambling, or wagering scheme based . . . on” competitive sporting events, 28 U. S. C. §3702(1), and for “a person to sponsor, operate, advertise, or promote” those same gambling schemes if done “pursuant to the law or compact of a governmental entity,” §3702(2). But PASPA does not make sports gambling itself a federal crime. Instead, it allows the Attorney General, as well as professional and amateur sports organizations, to bring civil actions to enjoin violations. That is, rather than say sports gambling shall be declared illegal, they made it a civil offense for a state to pass a law legalizing sports gambling.
  • jessriedel 8y ago
    Sure, but I was asking about the legal reasoning supporting the opinion, not just the facts of the case.
    • drone 8y ago
      Looks down into the syllabus, I think you'll find 2.(a), 2.(b), and 2.(c) have the key components from their regard: 1) “Congress may not simply ‘commandeer the legislative process of the States by directly compelling them to enact and enforce a federal regulatory program.’” and 2) "The distinction between compelling a State to enact legislation and prohibiting a State from enacting new laws is an empty one. The basic principle—that Congress cannot issue direct orders to state legislature—applies in either event." 3) "... since the Constitution “confers upon Congress the power to regulate individuals, not States,” ... "There is no way that the PASPA anti-authorization provision can be understood as a regulation of private actors. It does not confer any federal rights on private actors interested in conducting sports gambling operations or impose any federal restrictions on private actors."
  • gowld 8y ago
    To my lay reading, that law says "separation of gambling and state", akin to the First Amendment on religion. It doesn't ban gambling, it bans the states governments from getting involved in gambling. It seems that unregulated gambling is allowed (or would be, if not for other provisions that grandfathered the existing anti-gambling laws of every state?) Either way, it looks pretty clearly unconstitutional, since it's making a "constitution-level" rule about how State governments operate.
• deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
• StanislavPetrov 8y ago
  >I don't quite understand what they're saying here Basically that Congress is able to pass a federal law to prevent sports gambling but does not have the power to force states to pass and enforce state laws against sports gambling. >but they can't restrict what laws states pass? Restricing a state from passing a law is quite different from federally mandating a state to pass a law.
  • jessriedel 8y ago
    > Basically that Congress is able to pass a federal law to prevent sports gambling It's not clear Congress has that power. The much more pertinent fact is that Congress can induce states to pass laws by withholding funding. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Dakota_v._Dole https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Dakota_v._Dole > Restricting a state from passing a law is quite different from federally mandating a state to pass a law. From the decision: "The distinction between compelling a State to enact legislation and prohibiting a State from enacting new laws is an empty one. The basic principle—that Congress cannot issue direct orders to state legislature—applies in either event."
• tathougies 8y ago
  > I don't quite understand what they're saying here...I guess the idea is that Congress can regulate gambling -- assuming some constitutional justification like the commerce clause -- but they can't restrict what laws states pass? The federal government can make it illegal for people to place sports bet or run a gambling ring, because it has authority and sovereignty over the people in the United States. The federal government has rather wide authority. For example, Congress could make it illegal for American citizens to gamble in Canada (In the same way, it used to be illegal to do business with Cuba). However, Congress cannot pass a law saying that Canada cannot legalize gambling, because the government of the United States has no authority over the sovereign government of Canada. Similarly, the federal government can make it illegal for its residents to gamble. However, it cannot exercise authority not directly given to it over the state governments, because the federal government has no authority over the sovereign state governments. The state governments and the feds share sovereignty over the boundaries of each state, but the state government retains all aspects of sovereignty not explicitly given to the feds. Gambling is one of those things that the states retain sovereignty over.
  • mobilefriendly 8y ago
    Your comment is completely untethered from any understanding of the Constitution and American federalist system. Authority and sovereignty in the U.S. flows upward from the people to the states and then to the federal government. The federal government likely cannot make it illegal to place a sports bet, which is why Congress was trying to commandeer the state governments to do it. Federal sovereignty is explicitly limited (particularly through the Bill of Rights) and not nearly as arbitrary and sweeping as you think it is. Even your sanctions example is wrong, the U.S. could not just make it illegal for Americans to gamble in Canada. Such a narrow provision would be unconstitutional, the federal government would have to demonstrate a national foreign policy reason (a legitimate function of the federal government) for it to pass such a law and have it survive court challenge.
    • dragonwriter 8y ago
      > The federal government likely cannot make it illegal to place a sports bet There is a much stronger interstate commerce clause claim for a very broad prohibition here (say, effecting any betting either on any competition involving an interstate or international sports league, or where the bet crosses state or national borders, or using regulated wire or broadcast communication channels) than for many things that have survived challenge the whole way through the Supreme Court, so while I recognize that many people have narrow personal interpretations of the Commerce Clause power, I don't think that is actually a real practical barrier here.