Supreme Court strikes down federal anti-sports gambling law

[saphojunkie]

Paging weed.... weed, please pick up. Doctor Legal Weed.

[dirk digler]

Originally Posted by saphojunkie

Paging weed.... weed, please pick up. Doctor Legal Weed.

Hopefully that is next or at least it should be.

[JakeF]

How big of a hit will Las Vegas take because of this?

[Why Not?]

Originally Posted by JakeF

How big of a hit will Las Vegas take because of this?

None. Vegas will always be Vegas.

[Hamwallet]

Originally Posted by JakeF

How big of a hit will Las Vegas take because of this?

Ehhh. How many Vegas trips did you plan around sports betting? I don’t think they will lose much since they have legal weed. Holes will be filled. (Legal hookers)

[BWillie]

God damn it. I was hoping this law would stand (selfishly). I really don't think it will take it's toll on Vegas as much as people think. People go to Vegas because it's Vegas and for the atmosphere. It might hurt March Madness weekend or something like that a little, but people already know they can sportsbet at offshore sites. That is my worry, that people will be less inclined to play on Bovada, BetOnline and that in turn it will effect the online poker games by potentially losing some of the sportsbetting clientele.

[Hamwallet]

Can we please get Arthur Bryant’s back at ameristar casino if this happens. Brisket and college football betting. Holy **** boys!

[frozenchief]

This was a weird law and the decision does not quite mean what many people think it means.

To understand the decision, you need to understand how the Supreme Court works. They are not supposed to look at results but more at the process and the reasoning behind laws. As an example, say a state bans revenge porn. Bans on speech are strictly examined so if this ban would cover something other than revenge porn, the law would likely be struck down. If the Supreme Court struck down the law, headlines would be something like, “Supreme Court legalizes revenge porn,” which really is not the case. The Supreme Court just found that the law against revenge porn was not drafted well and it prohibited otherwise constitutionally protected speech.

In this case, Congress prohibited the States from allowing sports betting. Note that Congress itself did not ban sports betting per se (see below). Congress just prohibited States from doing so. The constitution gives Congress limited and specifically defined powers (it’s supposed to, anyway). If the Constitution does not specifically grant the power to Congress, Congress does not have the right to exercise that power. As one example, to regulate any commercial activity, the activity must be inter-state, that is, it must affect commerce between the states. This has been read quite broadly but it still has teeth sometimes.

Let me give an example of how this works. Congress has outlawed carjacking. Why? I don’t know. This is already a state crime and there is no real reason to make it a federal crime. But to be a federal crime, the car must move in interstate commerce. About 20 years ago, I was living in Nashville and a friend of mine was representing someone charged with federal carjacking. The car was a Saturn, manufactured and sold in Tennessee. He moved to dismiss the charges since the car had not traveled in interstate commerce. The federal case was dismissed but his client was convicted in state court. These procedural rules are important to lawyers and especially the Supreme Court but the subtlety of these rules is frequently lost on the media or the general public.

So as part of Congress’ limited authority, and because Congress and state legislatures govern different spheres of activity, Congress cannot tell state legislatures what they can and cannot regulate. In the drug arena, then, Congress can prohibit drug trafficking but Congress cannot command any state to outlaw drug trafficking. And Congress can tie receipt of federal money to passing certain laws because states can always turn down federal money. So Congress can make receipt of certain highway funds contingent upon states enacting a 21 year old drinking age and that is constitutional but Congress cannot write a law that requires a state to enact a drinking age of 21.

Given that background, Congress’ attempt to prohibit states from authorizing sports betting failed. Congress tried to ban sports betting in a way that it couldn’t do. Congress has prohibited transporting gambling devices (15 USC §§ 1171-1181) and the use of certain funds in online betting (31 USC 5361-5367) and certain gambling activities (18 USC 1955, covered as part of racketeering laws – can’t have an illegal gambling operation of more than 5 people that makes a certain amount of money). I’m sure there are others but those are the ones I know about off hand. I’ve represented people charged with racketeering but not the transporting gambling devices or use of certain funds derived from online gambling.

Could Congress pass a law that prohibited sports betting? Under our current legal framework, I am sure that Congress could pass such a law. It would wipe out Vegas’ sports books and any state that tried to start a similar system. The political will for that type of law, though, has likely passed. Nowadays, gambling pools for March Madness or the Super Bowl or some other sporting event are quite common and viewed as harmless. Allowing corporations to have Nevada gambling licenses really opened up the Nevada casinos and chased the Mafia out of Vegas (no, I don’t think they’ve all gone but so much of the gaming industry is above-board now that most illegal gambling operations are not seen by the general public) so there is not likely to be a huge push for these laws.

But the headline for this post is correct. The Supreme Court struck down laws but the Supreme Court did not legalize sports betting. The Supreme Court determined that the way Congress sought to prohibit sports betting was unconstitutional. That is a very big difference in legal terms.

[jallmon]

Originally Posted by frozenchief

This was a weird law and the decision does not quite mean what many people think it means.

...

The Supreme Court determined that the way Congress sought to prohibit sports betting was unconstitutional. That is a very big difference in legal terms.

Thank you! This post is very enlightening.

[O.city]

The majority of the people who currently bet on sports do it n fact already bet on sports. I dunno that Vegas is gonna hurt that much

[Rausch]

Originally Posted by O.city

The majority of the people who currently bet on sports do it n fact already bet on sports. I dunno that Vegas is gonna hurt that much

Wouldn't it push the rake down?

If I can bet anywhere instead of just Vegas, bookies, and "off shore" web sites it should get cheaper with competition.

[splatbass]

I like to go to Vegas during football season to bet on games, and I always wondered why casinos in other states didn't have it. I had no idea it was illegal outside of Nevada. Anyway, I'm glad they overturned it. Hopefully Missouri will legalize it so when I go there I can bet on sports.

[big nasty kcnut]

but will chiefs planet casino be legalized?

[CapsLockKey]

Laws requiring wearing of seat belts are state laws, not federal so I'm not seeing the link here. The only law I see that's federal is the one requiring manufacturers to have them in vehicles but enforcement is up to individual states.

[jjchieffan]

Originally Posted by CapsLockKey

Laws requiring wearing of seat belts are state laws, not federal so I'm not seeing the link here. The only law I see that's federal is the one requiring manufacturers to have them in vehicles but enforcement is up to individual states.

They are state laws. But the federal government forced the states to enact the seatbelt laws by withholding federal highway funds until the states passed the laws. That was skirting the constitution. The constitution wouldn't allow the federal government to make the law, so they just said pass the law or else. No state wants to lose their highway money, so they had no choice but to comply. It's bullshit!