Supreme Court takes up New Jersey gambling case

Getty Images

The case centers on New Jersey, but it will potentially have national ramifications.

The nine-member U.S. Supreme Court currently is hearing arguments regarding the attack on the federal law that prevents individual states from adopting sports wagering. If New Jersey prevails, the door will be open to the state-by-state adoption of legalized sports betting.

The NFL and other sports leagues have been fighting the effort, even though the NFL has allowed the Raiders to eventually move to Las Vegas. Many believe the NFL prefers that any change to the national gambling laws happens through the legislative process, which can be engineered to maximize the money the NFL would make, for example by being the conduit for betting on games.

The fact that the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case has been regarded as a positive sign for New Jersey, given that New Jersey had failed at all lower levels.

A win by New Jersey would potentially create a Wild West scenario, allowing states to decide on their own the rules for gambling — including the threshold question of whether they even want it. Given the proliferation of lotteries and poker machines and casinos in recent decades, it’s hard to imagine states resisting the temptation to expand the best kind of taxation there is: The voluntary kind.

11 responses to “Supreme Court takes up New Jersey gambling case

  1. This is very simple. It has nothing to do with whether gambling is good or bad, whether it encourages athletes to fix games, yada yada yada. It is a basic question of whether the Federal Government has a Constitutional right to override State authority on the issue of gambling.

    It doesn’t.

  2. Of course states should be allowed to legalize sports betting if they desire. I wish more states would legalize casino gaming as well, but there’s still a lot of allegedly-moral opposition to that. Regulated casino gaming is scarcely different from other forms of entertainment you spend money on – it simply got a bad connotation with the early years of mob association.

  3. lukedunphysscienceproject says:

    December 4, 2017 at 11:06 am

    This is very simple. It has nothing to do with whether gambling is good or bad, whether it encourages athletes to fix games, yada yada yada. It is a basic question of whether the Federal Government has a Constitutional right to override State authority on the issue of gambling.

    It doesn’t.

    Athletes can gamble illegally now if they wanted too. Not sure where this statement is relevant

  4. eaglesgreen29 says:
    December 4, 2017 at 11:22 am
    lukedunphysscienceproject says:

    December 4, 2017 at 11:06 am

    This is very simple. It has nothing to do with whether gambling is good or bad, whether it encourages athletes to fix games, yada yada yada. It is a basic question of whether the Federal Government has a Constitutional right to override State authority on the issue of gambling.

    It doesn’t.

    Athletes can gamble illegally now if they wanted too. Not sure where this statement is relevant
    ——-

    Yeah…..you totally missed my point. It is completely irrelevant whether athletes gamble or how they do it. Only the constitutional question matters, was my point

  5. It is a basic question of whether the Federal Government has a Constitutional right to override State authority on the issue of gambling.
    ———————————–
    Nope. Just seeing whether they should lift the federal ban so that states can make their own rules. Reading is hard though.

    from the article above…
    “The nine-member U.S. Supreme Court currently is hearing arguments regarding the attack on the federal law that prevents individual states from adopting sports wagering. “

  6. savethebs says:
    December 4, 2017 at 12:00 pm
    It is a basic question of whether the Federal Government has a Constitutional right to override State authority on the issue of gambling.
    ———————————–
    Nope. Just seeing whether they should lift the federal ban so that states can make their own rules. Reading is hard though.
    ——–

    ” Reading is hard though”. LOL. Yeah dude I get it. I also get constitutional law, which you apparently don’t. I was saying that the reason they should get rid of the ban was because it was unconstitutional for the government to override the state. Which is exactly why the court is considering lifting the ban so the states can “make their own rules”.

  7. It is a basic question of whether the Federal Government has a Constitutional right to override State authority on the issue of gambling.
    ———————————–
    Nope. Just seeing whether they should lift the federal ban so that states can make their own rules. Reading is hard though.

    from the article above…
    “The nine-member U.S. Supreme Court currently is hearing arguments regarding the attack on the federal law that prevents individual states from adopting sports wagering. “

    Yes, reading is hard. So much that I completely don’t understand what you are saying.

    The Supreme Court is hearing arguments to lift the ban…and one of those arguments is going to be that the Federal Government does not have the right to override the States on gambling. And the basis of that argument is going to be the 10th Amendment, which basically says that any rights not defined in the Constitution get to be defined by the States.

    Now, the Supreme Court has managed to ignore the 10th Amendment from time to time, but in this case, it is really odd that Nevada gets to do something that the rest of the States do not.

  8. The Supreme Court ruling on whether NJ can have sports betting “could be one of the most important ever issued by the High Court” because it is “about our system of government and the relationship between the power of the federal government and the states”, so says attorney I. Nelson Rose, an expert in gambling and the law. You can read his excellent article about this on his website gambling and the law dot com (all one word). He says this is a case about sports betting, but what is really at stake is medical marijuana. Also, he says, if you “dig deeper you get to the question of when can the federal government overrule state laws”. He says “none of the original drafters of the Constitution would have thought the federal government could interfere in areas like gambling and pot, legal or not”. His column is well worth a read.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!