Update: Major Sports Leagues Submit Briefs to Supreme Court Regarding New Jersey Sports Gambling Case; Outlines Why the PASPA is Constitutional

Casino Watch Focus has reported on the ongoing efforts by New Jersey to legalize sports gambling. The Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case and not surprisingly, casino lobbyist pushed forward with there support to legalize sports gambling for all states through the New Jersey case. They are claiming that the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (PASPA) violates the Constitution by making States enforce a Federal law. The Legal Sports Report explains: 

The NCAA and thepro sports leagues argued in their *US Supreme Court brief today that the federal sports betting ban is constitutional. Here is the crux of the leagues’ argument from today’s brief regarding PASPA, the federal law
banning sports betting outside of Nevada:

“PASPA lacks the irreducible minimum of any successful commandeering claim: It does not compel states or state officials to do anything. States are not required to enact laws, to take title to something, to conduct background checks, to consider federal standards, to expend funds, or to enforce federal law. Proving the point, New Jersey fully complied with PASPA for two decades without doing anything.

That is because PASPA only prohibits states from sponsoring,operating, advertising, or promoting sports-gambling schemes, and prohibits states from licensing or authorizing third parties to engage in that conduct. PASPA does not force states to take any affirmative action to comply with those prohibitions.

Thus, while petitioners portray PASPA as an anomalous effort to enlist states to do the federal government’s bidding, the reality is that PASPA is an unremarkable effort to preclude states from engaging in certain conduct and to preempt state laws that license or authorize others to do the same.”

And further:

“But Congress does not commandeer the states just because it limits their policy options, and nothing in the Tenth Amendment prevents Congress from using its commerce power to preempt state laws that contravene federal policy. The difference between permissible preemption and impermissible commandeering is that the former precludes certain state action, while the latter commands it. PASPA falls comfortably in the former, permissible camp.”

For more information on the dangers of gambling, please visit CASINO WATCH & CASINO WATCH FOUNDATION

Comments are disabled.

%d bloggers like this: