[BostonCard]

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

[BostonCard]

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

[OutsiderFan]

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

How is this off topic?  It may not be specifically about Stanford, but the SCOTUS ruling absolutely impacts Stanford, as it is the most significant thing to happen to commercialized sports since athlete free agency.

[OutsiderFan]

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

How is this off topic?  It may not be specifically about Stanford, but the SCOTUS ruling absolutely impacts Stanford, as it is the most significant thing to happen to commercialized sports since athlete free agency.

[wallendar]

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

How is this off topic?  It may not be specifically about Stanford, but the SCOTUS ruling absolutely impacts Stanford, as it is the most significant thing to happen to commercialized sports since athlete free agency.

This is a very big issue that affects all pro and college sports.  A number of states have already passed legislation pending the SC decision.  Quite a few other states, including California, have legislation written and ready to consider in their respective legislatures.

Given the approach the NBA is taking - they want a royalty paid since they are responsible for creating the action on which bettors will put their money down - it would not surprise me if states give a slice of the revenue pie to state universities within their jurisdiction (West Virginia is already headed down this road by considering a piece for Marshall and WVU).

[wallendar]

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

How is this off topic?  It may not be specifically about Stanford, but the SCOTUS ruling absolutely impacts Stanford, as it is the most significant thing to happen to commercialized sports since athlete free agency.

This is a very big issue that affects all pro and college sports.  A number of states have already passed legislation pending the SC decision.  Quite a few other states, including California, have legislation written and ready to consider in their respective legislatures.

Given the approach the NBA is taking - they want a royalty paid since they are responsible for creating the action on which bettors will put their money down - it would not surprise me if states give a slice of the revenue pie to state universities within their jurisdiction (West Virginia is already headed down this road by considering a piece for Marshall and WVU).

[CowboyIndian]

...it would not surprise me if states give a slice of the revenue pie to state universities within their jurisdiction.

If this saves Kal's financial a$$, I will be extremely pi$$ed!

[CowboyIndian]

...it would not surprise me if states give a slice of the revenue pie to state universities within their jurisdiction.

If this saves Kal's financial a$$, I will be extremely pi$$ed!

[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.)

[terry]

I agree with ColoradoTree's analysis. 

The basic principle is this: Congress can regulate sports gambling itself. But Congress can't dictate to the states which laws the states must pass, or must not pass, on this topic. 

Clearly, Congress could ban all sports gambling. The Commerce Clause gives Congress that power. But Congress has not done so, and probably will not do so.

To me, the more interesting question to me is whether Congress has the power to ban sports gambling everywhere except the places where it is currently legal, thus preserving the status quo. Would it be legal for Congress to ban sports gambling in most of the nation, while allowing it in a few selected places?

I suspect that it would. The Supreme Court has said repeatedly that the Commerce Clause does not require uniform regulation across the nation. For example: "Nor does the Commerce Clause impose requirements of geographic uniformity. . . . Congress may devise . . . a national policy with due regard for the varying and fluctuating interests of different regions." Secretary of Agriculture v. Central Roig Refining Co. (1950).

However, I doubt that Congress will impose such a limitation on gambling. The gambling industry is brobdingnagian and has a lot of money to spend on lobbying and campaign donations. (I'm not calling it the gaming industry. It's gambling.) Congress probably will allow each state to make its own decision.

[terry]

I agree with ColoradoTree's analysis. 

The basic principle is this: Congress can regulate sports gambling itself. But Congress can't dictate to the states which laws the states must pass, or must not pass, on this topic. 

Clearly, Congress could ban all sports gambling. The Commerce Clause gives Congress that power. But Congress has not done so, and probably will not do so.

To me, the more interesting question to me is whether Congress has the power to ban sports gambling everywhere except the places where it is currently legal, thus preserving the status quo. Would it be legal for Congress to ban sports gambling in most of the nation, while allowing it in a few selected places?

I suspect that it would. The Supreme Court has said repeatedly that the Commerce Clause does not require uniform regulation across the nation. For example: "Nor does the Commerce Clause impose requirements of geographic uniformity. . . . Congress may devise . . . a national policy with due regard for the varying and fluctuating interests of different regions." Secretary of Agriculture v. Central Roig Refining Co. (1950).

However, I doubt that Congress will impose such a limitation on gambling. The gambling industry is brobdingnagian and has a lot of money to spend on lobbying and campaign donations. (I'm not calling it the gaming industry. It's gambling.) Congress probably will allow each state to make its own decision.

[BostonCard]

Thanks ColoradoTree and Terry.  I'm not a gambling man, but I can't be made to care enough about the issue that I think the federal government should establish national gambling laws.  Fine with me for individual states to regulate sports gambling, though I wonder who would have jurisdiction over internet gambling?

BC

[BostonCard]

Thanks ColoradoTree and Terry.  I'm not a gambling man, but I can't be made to care enough about the issue that I think the federal government should establish national gambling laws.  Fine with me for individual states to regulate sports gambling, though I wonder who would have jurisdiction over internet gambling?

BC

[washingtonismoney]

I'm a bit wary of proliferating gambling, which I suspect will be the outcome of this decision. (Which, on the legal merits, seems sound to me -- based strictly on my citizen's knowledge of the law blah blah). 

Prohibition doesn't really work, as we've seen in a bunch of contexts. But the unfettered spread of what we'll call "vice" activities -- gambling, drinking, drugs -- also doesn't work, in a way that's not acknowledged by civil libertarians. Drinking kills many people per year and it seems to me relatively modest regulations could mitigate much of the damage to society. Instinctively, gambling feels like a similar class of problem. 

And, as we've seen in many contexts (e.g., say, opioids) it can be difficult to lasso problems once they've escaped orderly confines. So while I wouldn't mind putting a bet or two down I'm wary about what this will mean as a societal phenomenon.

[washingtonismoney]

I'm a bit wary of proliferating gambling, which I suspect will be the outcome of this decision. (Which, on the legal merits, seems sound to me -- based strictly on my citizen's knowledge of the law blah blah). 

Prohibition doesn't really work, as we've seen in a bunch of contexts. But the unfettered spread of what we'll call "vice" activities -- gambling, drinking, drugs -- also doesn't work, in a way that's not acknowledged by civil libertarians. Drinking kills many people per year and it seems to me relatively modest regulations could mitigate much of the damage to society. Instinctively, gambling feels like a similar class of problem. 

And, as we've seen in many contexts (e.g., say, opioids) it can be difficult to lasso problems once they've escaped orderly confines. So while I wouldn't mind putting a bet or two down I'm wary about what this will mean as a societal phenomenon.

[CowboyIndian]

One thing it will mean...or at least I believe so...is that college sports programming will remain valuable and possibly increase.

[CowboyIndian]

One thing it will mean...or at least I believe so...is that college sports programming will remain valuable and possibly increase.

[qwerty49]

One thing it will mean...or at least I believe so...is that college sports programming will remain valuable and possibly increase.

Yes, those Slippery Rock and Ball State scores will take on heightened importance!

[qwerty49]

One thing it will mean...or at least I believe so...is that college sports programming will remain valuable and possibly increase.

Yes, those Slippery Rock and Ball State scores will take on heightened importance!

[Goose]

Any guesses on how many/which states will preserve a ban on sports betting? I would imagine at least some will. It will be interesting to see what level of support such a ban actually had nationwide, given that it did pass congress.

[Goose]

Any guesses on how many/which states will preserve a ban on sports betting? I would imagine at least some will. It will be interesting to see what level of support such a ban actually had nationwide, given that it did pass congress.

[CowboyIndian]

One thing it will mean...or at least I believe so...is that college sports programming will remain valuable and possibly increase.

Yes, those Slippery Rock and Ball State scores will take on heightened importance!

I doubt those schools will see the light of day on television or other media but there will be more non-affiliated eyeballs on Power 5 college games, I think.

[CowboyIndian]

One thing it will mean...or at least I believe so...is that college sports programming will remain valuable and possibly increase.

Yes, those Slippery Rock and Ball State scores will take on heightened importance!

I doubt those schools will see the light of day on television or other media but there will be more non-affiliated eyeballs on Power 5 college games, I think.

[82lsju]

[attachment=131]

Any guesses on how many/which states will preserve a ban on sports betting? I would imagine at least some will. It will be interesting to see what level of support such a ban actually had nationwide, given that it did pass congress.

for ones in some sort of progress today

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/20...607334002/

and a forecast of which states will within 5 years

https://www.si.com/more-sports/2018/supr...ion-update

[82lsju]

[attachment=131]

Any guesses on how many/which states will preserve a ban on sports betting? I would imagine at least some will. It will be interesting to see what level of support such a ban actually had nationwide, given that it did pass congress.

for ones in some sort of progress today

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/20...607334002/

and a forecast of which states will within 5 years

https://www.si.com/more-sports/2018/supr...ion-update

[CTcard]

Drinking kills many people per year and it seems to me relatively modest regulations could mitigate much of the damage to society. 

Of course the current situation is that we have relatively modest regulations concerning alcohol - about driving and drinking, where and when you can buy a drink, etc. Apparently too modest to handle the current problems. 

... but this line of discussion is drifting dangerously close to out of bounds.

[CTcard]

Drinking kills many people per year and it seems to me relatively modest regulations could mitigate much of the damage to society. 

Of course the current situation is that we have relatively modest regulations concerning alcohol - about driving and drinking, where and when you can buy a drink, etc. Apparently too modest to handle the current problems. 

... but this line of discussion is drifting dangerously close to out of bounds.

[Snorlax94]

I

One thing it will mean...or at least I believe so...is that college sports programming will remain valuable and possibly increase.

Cowboyindian, I think this is an interesting  take on this case.

I am in Vegas right now and it’s striking how much this is a sports town. At one casino, all the dealers are wearing hockey jerseys. Billboards everywhere support the hockey team. In shops and wherever when people hear I am from the bay area they talk Warriors. 

But while this may not be a good thing broadly, I think cowboyindian is right on this — more sports gambling will increase interest in sports. People will watch games to the end. They’ll place bets on and be more interested in teams that aren’t necessarily their home team.

I do worry there will be many broader negative consequences from the increases in gambling, not to mention even more bribery and corruption. Or generally, while I enjoy visiting the Vegas strip, I wouldn’t want the Bay Area or most places to become more Vegas Strip-like (drawing a distinction between more normal life in Vegas for residents and workers, and the atmoshphere around the casinos).

But I do think this may increase viewership  in the 2-10 year timeframe, or until the increased corruption turns people off.

[Snorlax94]

I

One thing it will mean...or at least I believe so...is that college sports programming will remain valuable and possibly increase.

Cowboyindian, I think this is an interesting  take on this case.

I am in Vegas right now and it’s striking how much this is a sports town. At one casino, all the dealers are wearing hockey jerseys. Billboards everywhere support the hockey team. In shops and wherever when people hear I am from the bay area they talk Warriors. 

But while this may not be a good thing broadly, I think cowboyindian is right on this — more sports gambling will increase interest in sports. People will watch games to the end. They’ll place bets on and be more interested in teams that aren’t necessarily their home team.

I do worry there will be many broader negative consequences from the increases in gambling, not to mention even more bribery and corruption. Or generally, while I enjoy visiting the Vegas strip, I wouldn’t want the Bay Area or most places to become more Vegas Strip-like (drawing a distinction between more normal life in Vegas for residents and workers, and the atmoshphere around the casinos).

But I do think this may increase viewership  in the 2-10 year timeframe, or until the increased corruption turns people off.