WWTBAM Bored

I haven't seen the ruling yet, but it was a 6-3 decision that said the 1992 Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act, which said that states could not legalize sports gambling anywhere other than in Nevada (which was grandfathered in) violated the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution. The immediate effect of this ruling is to allow New Jersey (which challenged the Federal ban) to start allowing sports wagering, with other states likely to follow.

I'm not sure how this ruling will impact other Federal attempts to pre-empt state legislation, since, as this article indicates, the 1992 Sports Act was worded somewhat unusually. It would be interesting to read the opinion by Justice Alito to see how broad the ruling actually is.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/suprem ... ry-n868956

Based on this article, it appears that what upset the Court majority was that, instead of banning sports gambling altogether, which the Alito opinion said that Congress could do, the law prohibited states from legalizing it. The Court said that was a violation of the Tenth Amendment, in effect "commandeering" state officials.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/05/ ... ing-584451

silverscreenselect wrote:Based on this article, it appears that what upset the Court majority was that, instead of banning sports gambling altogether, which the Alito opinion said that Congress could do, the law prohibited states from legalizing it. The Court said that was a violation of the Tenth Amendment, in effect "commandeering" state officials.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/05/ ... ing-584451

That might affect the Feds trying to outlaw sanctuary states/cities.

Bob Juch wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote:Based on this article, it appears that what upset the Court majority was that, instead of banning sports gambling altogether, which the Alito opinion said that Congress could do, the law prohibited states from legalizing it. The Court said that was a violation of the Tenth Amendment, in effect "commandeering" state officials.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/05/ ... ing-584451

That might affect the Feds trying to outlaw sanctuary states/cities.

Nope. The borders and immigration are federal issues.

BackInTex wrote:

Bob Juch wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote:Based on this article, it appears that what upset the Court majority was that, instead of banning sports gambling altogether, which the Alito opinion said that Congress could do, the law prohibited states from legalizing it. The Court said that was a violation of the Tenth Amendment, in effect "commandeering" state officials.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/05/ ... ing-584451

That might affect the Feds trying to outlaw sanctuary states/cities.

Nope. The borders and immigration are federal issues.

Nope, the ruling means that the Feds can't direct state and city law enforcement to enforce immigration laws.

Bob Juch wrote:

BackInTex wrote:

Bob Juch wrote: That might affect the Feds trying to outlaw sanctuary states/cities.

Nope. The borders and immigration are federal issues.

Nope, the ruling means that the Feds can't direct state and city law enforcement to enforce immigration laws.

It does not in any way mean that.

BackInTex wrote:

Bob Juch wrote:

BackInTex wrote:
Nope. The borders and immigration are federal issues.

Nope, the ruling means that the Feds can't direct state and city law enforcement to enforce immigration laws.

It does not in any way mean that.

As I read the decision, it says that the Federal government cannot "issue direct orders to the governments of the States." They cited an earlier decision, in which the Court struck down a federal law requiring state and local officials to conduct firearm background checks. The Court differentiated between Congress regulating, in which case it assumes responsibility for what it has done, to ordering the states to regulate, in which responsibility is "blurred." It also prevents the Federal government from shifting the cost of regulation to the states.

[S]tate legislatures are put under the direct control of Congress. It is as if federal officers were installed in state legislative chambers and were armed with the authority to stop legislators from voting on any offending proposals. A more direct affront to state sovereignty is not easy to imagine.

It can certainly be argued that federal attempts to require states to enforce federal immigration laws would be covered under this ruling for the exact same reason (in fact, this case would seem to be identical to the firearm background check law). However, a state sanctuary law cannot preempt federal immigration law.

BackInTex wrote:

Bob Juch wrote:

BackInTex wrote:
Nope. The borders and immigration are federal issues.

Nope, the ruling means that the Feds can't direct state and city law enforcement to enforce immigration laws.

It does not in any way mean that.

I think it does. Particularly in conjunction with the majority opinion invalidating the Medicaid expansion of the Affordable Care Act, not because it was a direct order to the States, but because it was an "offer they couldn't refuse," I think that the majority is going to be very sympathetic to the position that States cannot be compelled or financially coerced into using state resources to enforce federal immigration policy. --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:

BackInTex wrote:

Bob Juch wrote: Nope, the ruling means that the Feds can't direct state and city law enforcement to enforce immigration laws.

It does not in any way mean that.

I think it does. Particularly in conjunction with the majority opinion invalidating the Medicaid expansion of the Affordable Care Act, not because it was a direct order to the States, but because it was an "offer they couldn't refuse," I think that the majority is going to be very sympathetic to the position that States cannot be compelled or financially coerced into using state resources to enforce federal immigration policy. --Bob

If so, then RIP the Department of Education. Among others

BackInTex wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:

BackInTex wrote:
It does not in any way mean that.

I think it does. Particularly in conjunction with the majority opinion invalidating the Medicaid expansion of the Affordable Care Act, not because it was a direct order to the States, but because it was an "offer they couldn't refuse," I think that the majority is going to be very sympathetic to the position that States cannot be compelled or financially coerced into using state resources to enforce federal immigration policy. --Bob

If so, then RIP the Department of Education. Among others

Not at all. The federal government is entitled to spend federal dollars to accomplish federal goals. It can even impose conditions on the receipt of federal dollars that are reasonably related to the accomplishment of those goals. What it can't do is compel or coerce the States to spend state dollars to accomplish federal goals. --Bob

Wow, it took all of three posts to turn a discussion about sports gambling into a political argument. I have mixed feelings about the ruling because I have 4-5 friends of mine who have unauthorized bookie operations here who will have their businesses hurt when the casinos in our state start taking sports bets but I am glad overall for the ruling because I won't have to travel to Las Vegas to make futures bets and similar things that our local bookies refuse to book like golf, car racing, etc. Our town is far enough away from our MS casinos that very few of of my friend's regular customers will drive a couple of hours to place a legal bet when they can pretty much bet on any of the major sports (NCAA football, basketball, NFL, NBA, MLB) with the same odds here at home. FWIW- Our legislature anticipated this judgement and passed legislation this spring allowing our casinos to implement sports betting as soon as a favorable judgement came thru. Our sports books have already been planned and should be in business very shortly.

lilclyde54 wrote:Wow, it took all of three posts to turn a discussion about sports gambling into a political argument. I have mixed feelings about the ruling because I have 4-5 friends of mine who have unauthorized bookie operations here who will have their businesses hurt when the casinos in our state start taking sports bets but I am glad overall for the ruling because I won't have to travel to Las Vegas to make futures bets and similar things that our local bookies refuse to book like golf, car racing, etc. Our town is far enough away from our MS casinos that very few of of my friend's regular customers will drive a couple of hours to place a legal bet when they can pretty much bet on any of the major sports (NCAA football, basketball, NFL, NBA, MLB) with the same odds here at home. FWIW- Our legislature anticipated this judgement and passed legislation this spring allowing our casinos to implement sports betting as soon as a favorable judgement came thru. Our sports books have already been planned and should be in business very shortly.

Hee hee. You expect peeps to keep on task?