
US Supreme Court strikes down federal law prohibiting sports gambling - mark-ruwt
http://www.espn.com/chalk/story/_/id/23501236/supreme-court-strikes-federal-law-prohibiting-sports-gambling
======
jessriedel
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 the law
> Congress has enacted and decide whether it is consistent with the
> Constitution. PASPA is not. PASPA “regulate[s] state governments’
> regulation” of their citizens.... The Constitution gives Congress no such
> power.

[https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-476_dbfi.pdf](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-476_dbfi.pdf)

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? (Of
course, per drinking ages, they can tax states citizens and then release that
tax money back to the states conditional on state s enacting certain laws.)

Here is extensive coverage on the excellent SCOTUSblog

[http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/murphy-v-
national...](http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/murphy-v-national-
collegiate-athletic-association-2/)

Other HN submission (Bloomberg article):

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17065652](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17065652)

~~~
raiyu
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.

~~~
pdabbadabba
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.

~~~
kenjackson
Why would Congress do this? Is it because there is some other constitutional
requirement they would be in violation of if they just made it illegal at the
federal level?

~~~
mobilefriendly
Yes, the Tenth Amendment reserves powers not explicitly given to the federal
government to the states and the people. Local sports and poker betting is
already regulated by the states and a federal interstate commerce claim to
regulate it is fairly weak.

~~~
_acme
Pursuant to Gonzales v. Raich, which ruled that Congress could criminalize the
production and use of homegrown marijuana for personal use, the interstate
effect of gambling in any form on any activity is almost certainly sufficient
for Congress to regulate or prohibit any or all gambling activity.

In addition, the Ninth Circuit has held that Congress has Commerce Clause
authority to criminalize possession of homemade machine guns.

Congress has chosen to allow states to regulate gambling to a certain extent,
which explains its legality in various forms in the various states.

------
wycs
Does anyone know if this means for general predication markets?

The only reasons I've found blockchain at all interesting is for the creation
of combinatorial prediction markets. If gambling laws are getting lax enough
in some states to allow centralized prediction markets, my interest will wane
to zero.

~~~
basementcat
Prediction markets are already legal in the USA.

[https://iemweb.biz.uiowa.edu/](https://iemweb.biz.uiowa.edu/)
[https://www.predictit.org/](https://www.predictit.org/)

~~~
Sniffnoy
That's not exactly accurate. The government has gone after and shut down
prediction markets before. They made an agreement with PredictIt not to, but
PredictIt's $850 limit was apparently a big factor in that.

I hadn't heard of IEM before. Not sure what's up with that.

~~~
sigstoat
IEM has received multiple no-action letters, and also has limits. So basically
the same situation as PredictIt.

------
epmatsw
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...

~~~
chimeracoder
> 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...

(IANAL).

IIRC, that's done by allowing states to set their own drinking age, but
withholding federal funds for highways unless the drinking age is at least 21.
So any state _could_ set a lower drinking age, legally, but they'd be on the
hook for making up the difference in funds from their own budget.

That said, the combination of this decision and the ACA ruling that the
federal government couldn't withhold funds from non-participating states may
provide ground for a challenge to that law.

~~~
sedeki
What does IANAL stand for? I don’t dare to google for it at work.

~~~
tashoecraft
I am not a lawyer

------
cm2012
FiveThirtyEight's non political year value just skyrocketed

~~~
dmix
It's not like sports betting wasn't already widely common across the United
States. The only difference is that money (and taxes) will be going to US
companies directly now instead of off-shore online gambling companies...

~~~
edaemon
It was already common enough in the US, but it's downright rare compared to
how common it is in the UK or other places where it's legal. Hull, Stoke, West
Ham, and Manchester City come to mind -- all big soccer teams who have/had
bookmakers emblazoned on their uniforms as the main sponsor.

I'm sure that if the US makes sports betting legal we'll see a huge influx of
betting companies, apps, etc. Like you said, most of it was handled by foreign
companies, but now they'll be able to advertise and grow in the US in earnest.

------
italophil
I am curious what that means for fantasy sports companies like DraftKings that
ran into issues with gambling laws in the past.

~~~
hudibras
It's super bad for them. The vast majority of people who play the daily
fantasy sports would much rather just bet on the games themselves.

~~~
ramphastidae
Huh? What’s stopping these companies from simply integrating new gambling
features enabled by this decision into their existing product?

~~~
dkrich
Nothing, assuming states pass laws legalizing sports wagering in which Draft
Kings and the like operate.

The major problem I see is that while the current DK business model must be
extremely profitable (just hosting contests that you don't have a stake in and
taking a rake), running a sportsbook is an entirely different business. One
that typically brings minimal profits and can sometimes bring enormous losses
because now they are taking the action themselves. Sportsbooks are not
typically profit centers for casinos but loss-leaders to bring in people to
buy drinks and gamble on more profitable games.

I'm sure they must have been worried about this happening but probably will
try and get out in front of it to become an online bookmaker. My own hot take
is that this cannot be viewed as anything but a negative for them. I have to
believe it would be very difficult to compete with huge casinos that can build
their own platforms and bundle betting with their rewards programs. I also
agree with the OP's assumption that most people currently using daily fantasy
sites would much prefer to simply bet on games.

~~~
hudibras
>One that typically brings minimal profits and can sometimes bring enormous
losses because now they are taking the action themselves. Sportsbooks are not
typically profit centers for casinos but loss-leaders to bring in people to
buy drinks and gamble on more profitable games.

While this is true for places with competition among sportsbooks, like, say
Nevada or the internet, it's not necessarily true for the states. If they
start running a sportsbook (either themselves or, more likely, through a
contractor) with a monopoly in their particular state, then they'll be able to
charge more per-bet than they otherwise could. Instead of the standard 11:10
line, they could charge 12:10 or even 13:10 and they'd still get gobs of
bettors wanted to put money down at the only legal game in town.

------
padobson
Alito wrote for the majority, joined by Thomas, Gorsuch, Roberts, Kagan and
Kennedy.

Breyer dissented in part.

Ginsberg and Sotomayor dissented completely.

~~~
parvenu74
Link to the opinion?

~~~
marklubi
[https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-476_dbfi.pdf](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-476_dbfi.pdf)

------
neuland
The article is a bit light on details, but it sounds like this doesn't
automatically legalize sports betting. Rather, it allows states to legalize
it, which at least 20 states intend to do.

~~~
golemotron
Everything is legal unless there's a law against it. States would not legalize
gambling, they would repeal laws against it.

~~~
fapjacks
I don't know why you're being downvoted. Your statement is factually correct.

~~~
yammajr
IANAL, but I'm not sure that's exactly true. As far as I know, in 49 states
(not Louisiana), if there's not a law about it we fall back on some system
based on english common law.

~~~
tathougies
California falls back on Spanish civil law. The most obvious example of this
is the fact spouses cannot hold property individually in California, except
for a few (constitutionally protected) items.

In general, each sovereign jurisdiction will fall back on the legal system
that was in place at the time the jurisdiction gained its sovereignty. For
California, the ancestor state was Mexico, and thus Spain.

[https://www.law.berkeley.edu/library/robbins/pdf/ca-
legalher...](https://www.law.berkeley.edu/library/robbins/pdf/ca-
legalheritage.pdf)

But to answer the larger question. Everything that is not specifically
legislated against is legal. Some ancient laws may still hold, but most are
probably going to be found unconstitutional. Although, there may be some
exceptions that you could convince a court to enforce.

------
lsiebert
I think one thing not yet discussed much here is that state authorized
gambling is generally akin to a regressive tax, that is the state gets the
benefits of new funds, but mainly from the poor, not from the rich.

~~~
str33t_punk
I know many rich people who love sports betting

------
parvenu74
Just curious: were there odds published ahead of time on whether the SCOTUS
would strike down this law?

------
stevew20
Ooooo, I hope the next federal law changes our countries name from "The United
States of America" to "Russia"! P.S. please let's all stop supporting our
government making more laws. They are shit at it, and we should have MORE
freedom, not less. Then we can enjoy life and do stuff, ya know?

------
widowlark
Will this have an impact on bringing back companies like Intrade?

------
noarchy
Would this ruling potentially affect federal drug laws? I say this because
some US states have chosen to legalize marijuana, despite it remaining illegal
at the federal level. This seems like a similar kind of situation.

~~~
tssva
No, the Supreme Court didn't rule that Congress couldn't pass laws regarding
the regulation of sports gambling and userp state laws. What they ruled is
that Congress couldn't choose to not regulate an area and then tell states how
they had to regulate the same area.

In the case of drug laws there are clear federal laws regulating drug
trafficking, so this ruling does nothing to effect the status quo.

------
scottyelich
9,984,535

------
crankylinuxuser
It's certainly an interesting judgement.. Whereas Congress can "regulate" and
not at the same time. Long story short, it looks like more gambling is in.

And the longer view, is more people will be impoverished with more easy to
obtain gambling. Sure, a few will win it big, and they will be flaunted out
for the city/state/US to see. But on whole, more people will be harmed with
this.

But I'm sure it shovels money around sufficiently, making the GDP look like it
grew by a .1% Good 'ol "Parable of the Broken Window", at it again.

~~~
Karishma1234
Gambling is fun.

>And the longer view, is more people will be impoverished with more easy to
obtain gambling

As long as they are doing it out of their own choice it is nobody's business.

~~~
overcast
Addiction affects the lives of everyone around the addict. Whether we're
paying for it in taxes, or we're being attacked on the street.

~~~
Karishma1234
Not exercising and getting fat also affects lives of everyone around the fat
person, does that mean we should force individuals to exercise every day ?

Also it is much better if the addicts are identified early and quickly so that
people could stay away from them and shun them instead of a woman figuring out
her husband is an addict after the marriage. After gambling addiction next
what sugar addiction or netflix addiction ?

