Opinion: Supreme Court should bet on federalism


WASHINGTON — American democracy’s comic opera frequently features collaborations of “bootleggers and Baptists.” These entertainments are so named because during Prohibition, Baptists thought banning Demon Rum would improve public morals (oh, well) and bootleggers favored the ban because it made scarce a commodity for which there was a demand that they could profitably supply. On Monday, the Supreme Court will listen — with, one hopes, a mixture of bemusement and amusement — to arguments concerning another prohibition.

This one concerns a law banning what many millions of Americans do anyway — illegally betting between $150 billion and $400 billion annually on sports events. Illegality prevents precise knowledge, but if the sum is just $150 billion, that sum exceeds the combined revenues of Microsoft, Goldman Sachs and McDonald’s.

The court’s nine fine minds need not and should not trouble themselves with the question of whether this particular prohibition is sensible. They should, however, defend federalism by telling the national government to stop telling state governments what laws they cannot change.

In 1992, U.S Sen. Bill Bradley, D-N.J., a former college and NBA basketball star who worried about the possible corrupting effects of gambling on sports, authored the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act. It says no government entity may “authorize” wagering on sporting events. This has not deterred the many millions of Americans who since 1992 have wagered trillions on such events.

In a 2011 referendum, New Jersey voters authorized their Legislature to do what it did in 2014: partially legalize sports betting by repealing a law prohibiting such wagering at racetracks and casinos. The NCAA and professional sports leagues objected, saying that by “authorizing” such gambling New Jersey was violating PASPA. A federal circuit court agreed, rejecting the state’s argument that PASPA violates the 10th Amendment. The court said New Jersey’s partial repeal affirmatively authorized sports wagering by directing it to particular venues. The court argued that PASPA did not unconstitutionally “commandeer” state resources because it did not compel New Jersey to take a particular action or devote resources to administering federal choices.

An amicus brief supporting New Jersey argues that federalism precludes the national government from forbidding a state to pass a law “that neither violates the Constitution nor addresses any matter pre-empted by federal law.” Congress has not chosen, as it could, to prohibit sports betting; instead, Congress has paralyzed states, preventing them from changing laws that such betting violates, and effectively commandeering state resources to enforce a policy that the state dislikes.

As currently construed, PASPA requires states to disregard an emerging consensus: In 1993, 56 percent of Americans disapproved of legalizing sports betting. Now, 55 percent approve. The professional sports leagues are recalibrating their thinking, partly because legalizing and regulating sports betting would make it easier to detect suspicious surges of bets that might indicate rigged competition, and partly because wagering expands and intensifies fans’ engagement. For example, bettors watch more NFL games, and watch for longer, than non-bettors.

Besides, the NFL is moving the Oakland Raiders to a city built by gambling, Las Vegas, where an NHL franchise has just begun its first season. The outcome in the Supreme Court is difficult to predict. It is, however, legal to bet on it.

Writes for The Washington Post.



Reader Comments ...


Next Up in Opinion

Opinion: What is the real message of #MeToo?

The feminist website Babe published an account of a date gone bad. The pushback has been swift and sharp. I share some of the concerns of the critics, but I also think young women are sending a message that is being missed. The account by the anonymous “Grace” about a bad date with comedian Aziz Ansari was, if not “3,000 words of...
Readers Write: Jan. 22

Perdue on wrong side of history It is now clear that U.S. Sen. David Perdue has no intention of separating himself from the racist attitudes on immigration that President Trump recently articulated. That is because Trump represents Perdue’s own attitudes and positions. However it may appear to him at this moment, history teaches us clearly that...
Readers Write: Jan. 21

Nonpartisan committee needed for districting maps News about gerrymandering seems to be everywhere … in the AJC, on radio and TV. A decision of the federal court in North Carolina overturned maps because of extreme partisan gerrymandering. Two cases currently before the Supreme Court involve Republican gerrymandering in Wisconsin and Democratic...
Opinion: Journalists must give light; public can find its way

I was wrong. Years ago, people used to ask me what journalists should do to combat the nation’s drift toward “factish” and “truthy” logic. What was needed, I’d reply with misplaced confidence, is robust fact-checking. If news media were more aggressive in calling people out for lying, I predicted, they’d be...
Opinion: Choosing immigration criteria is a Sisyphean task

WASHINGTON — In 1790, the finest mind in the First Congress, and of his generation, addressed in the House of Representatives the immigration issue: “It is no doubt very desirable that we should hold out as many inducements as possible for the worthy part of mankind to come and settle amongst us.” Perhaps today’s 115th Congress...
More Stories