[ColoradoTree]

http://www.scotusblog.com/2018/05/opinio...bling-law/

The NCAA was a party to the suit:

The National Collegiate Athletic Association and the four major professional sports leagues went to court, arguing that the 2012 law violated PASPA. The lower federal courts agreed, prompting the New Jersey legislature to go back to the drawing board. In 2014, it passed a new law that rolled back existing bans on sports betting, at least as they applied to New Jersey casinos and racetracks. The NCAA and the leagues returned to court, arguing that the new law also violated PASPA, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit again ruled against the state.

As I understand the opinion (warning, as a non-lawyer I am veering far out of my lane), the ruling doesn't necessarily mean the federal government can't ban sports gambling; it just can't make states ban it.  It also doesn't mean that states can't ban it, just that if they chose not to, they don't have to.

Obviously, this could significantly affect the ability to gamble on the NCAA outside of Nevada (which had been grandfathered in as part of the law).

BC

I am a lawyer, and you got it right.  Congress retains the power to regulate sports betting directly under the Commerce Clause, and generally the power to regulate something that is not itself a constitutional right includes the power to ban it.  The fundamental flaw with PASPA was that Congress decided not to ban sports-related gambling entirely, but instead chose to just stop its spread, so they grandfathered in the states where it was then legal and told the rest they had to maintain their laws prohibiting it (after a one-year window to allow states to pass a pro-betting state law if they wanted to).  Had Congress decided to pass a nationwide sports betting scheme that allowed certain things and banned others, it would probably be fine, and would preempt state laws that wanted to do something different. But while Congress could have acted directly, it couldn't act indirectly by ordering states to pass or maintain a particular state law.  

In other words, here are two scenarios:

1.  Congress passes comprehensive regulatory scheme in sports betting. New Jersey wants to have its own scheme. Depending on the contours of the federal scheme, the New Jersey plan may be entirely preempted (for our purposes, void) or it may be allowed to have limited effect in the same way federal environmental standards set a floor below which states cannot go, but states can be more protective if they want to.  If New Jersey challenged the federal law, the federal law would almost certainly survive, because Congress acted directly.  If Congress simply banned all sports betting, and New Jersey wanted to allow it, New Jersey would be out of luck.  

2.  Congress passes PASPA, declines to regulate sports betting itself, and instead orders state governments to maintain existing state bans on sports betting.  That ordering around of state legislatures?  That's the problem.  As Justice Breyer points out in his separate opinion, the problem with Congress's efforts to prohibit sports betting are the means they chose to do so; the end itself--outlawing sports betting--is perfectly permissible under the Constitution.  Congress just has to write a better law if they want to ban it.  (I don't think there's a national appetite right now for banning sports betting, though.)

[ColoradoTree]

http://www.scotusblog.com/2018/05/opinio...bling-law/

The NCAA was a party to the suit:

The National Collegiate Athletic Association and the four major professional sports leagues went to court, arguing that the 2012 law violated PASPA. The lower federal courts agreed, prompting the New Jersey legislature to go back to the drawing board. In 2014, it passed a new law that rolled back existing bans on sports betting, at least as they applied to New Jersey casinos and racetracks. The NCAA and the leagues returned to court, arguing that the new law also violated PASPA, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit again ruled against the state.

As I understand the opinion (warning, as a non-lawyer I am veering far out of my lane), the ruling doesn't necessarily mean the federal government can't ban sports gambling; it just can't make states ban it.  It also doesn't mean that states can't ban it, just that if they chose not to, they don't have to.

Obviously, this could significantly affect the ability to gamble on the NCAA outside of Nevada (which had been grandfathered in as part of the law).

BC

I am a lawyer, and you got it right.  Congress retains the power to regulate sports betting directly under the Commerce Clause, and generally the power to regulate something that is not itself a constitutional right includes the power to ban it.  The fundamental flaw with PASPA was that Congress decided not to ban sports-related gambling entirely, but instead chose to just stop its spread, so they grandfathered in the states where it was then legal and told the rest they had to maintain their laws prohibiting it (after a one-year window to allow states to pass a pro-betting state law if they wanted to).  Had Congress decided to pass a nationwide sports betting scheme that allowed certain things and banned others, it would probably be fine, and would preempt state laws that wanted to do something different. But while Congress could have acted directly, it couldn't act indirectly by ordering states to pass or maintain a particular state law.  

In other words, here are two scenarios:

1.  Congress passes comprehensive regulatory scheme in sports betting. New Jersey wants to have its own scheme. Depending on the contours of the federal scheme, the New Jersey plan may be entirely preempted (for our purposes, void) or it may be allowed to have limited effect in the same way federal environmental standards set a floor below which states cannot go, but states can be more protective if they want to.  If New Jersey challenged the federal law, the federal law would almost certainly survive, because Congress acted directly.  If Congress simply banned all sports betting, and New Jersey wanted to allow it, New Jersey would be out of luck.  

2.  Congress passes PASPA, declines to regulate sports betting itself, and instead orders state governments to maintain existing state bans on sports betting.  That ordering around of state legislatures?  That's the problem.  As Justice Breyer points out in his separate opinion, the problem with Congress's efforts to prohibit sports betting are the means they chose to do so; the end itself--outlawing sports betting--is perfectly permissible under the Constitution.  Congress just has to write a better law if they want to ban it.  (I don't think there's a national appetite right now for banning sports betting, though.)