U.S. Supreme Court overturns federal sports-wagering ban

May 14, 2018, 11:03 am (28 comments)

Sports Betting

The U.S. Supreme Court struck down the federal law that bars gambling on individual sporting events in most of the country, in a ruling likely to unleash a race among the states to attract billions of dollars in legal wagers.

Ruling in a New Jersey case, the court said the 1992 law unconstitutionally forced states to maintain laws that ban gambling. Nevada is the only state where single-game wagering is now legal.

Sports gambling could begin in a matter of weeks in casinos and racetracks in New Jersey, which instigated the legal fight by repealing its gambling prohibition. Mississippi, Pennsylvania, New York, Delaware and West Virginia could follow soon, and the number of states might reach double digits by the end of the year.

Casino stocks, including Scientific Games Corp., Boyd Gaming Corp., MGM Resorts International and Caesars Entertainment Corp., jumped after the decision. Other companies such as online gaming giant The Stars Group Inc. and International Speedway Corp. also climbed.

The vote was 6-3 to strike down the entirety of the federal prohibition.

Americans place $150 billion a year in illegal sports bets, according to the casino-backed American Gaming Association. The research firm Eilers & Krejcik Gaming puts the number at $50 billion to $60 billion, not counting bets among friends.

The ruling starts a new era for the largest sports leagues, which fought New Jersey in court even while moving toward embracing legalized sports wagering. In January, a National Basketball Association executive told New York lawmakers the leagues should get 1 percent of all bets. The NBA says it would prefer a new federal law to set nationwide standards.

The lead case is Murphy v. NCAA, 16-476.

Bloomberg

Comments

Bleudog101

Too fast for me Todd, et al.  Was just going to send a news tip about this.

 

My hope, along with others is, maybe if some state would challenge that antiquated 1962 law prohibiting lottery sales across state lines it might get its long overdue demise.  I had written my ACLU about this years ago and not even a response from them.  To me it is borderline violating my First Amendment rights...who knows? 

Bleudog101

IGT stock up too!!

CDanaT's avatarCDanaT

Oh well................. Bet away, I  stick to lotteries and scratchers

music*'s avatarmusic*

Quote: Originally posted by CDanaT on May 14, 2018

Oh well................. Bet away, I  stick to lotteries and scratchers

I Agree!  Power Ball and Mega Millions are my gaming adventures. Party

KY Floyd's avatarKY Floyd

Quote: Originally posted by Bleudog101 on May 14, 2018

Too fast for me Todd, et al.  Was just going to send a news tip about this.

 

My hope, along with others is, maybe if some state would challenge that antiquated 1962 law prohibiting lottery sales across state lines it might get its long overdue demise.  I had written my ACLU about this years ago and not even a response from them.  To me it is borderline violating my First Amendment rights...who knows? 

"that antiquated 1962 law prohibiting lottery sales across state lines"

I haven't seen the reasoning behind the ruling in the current case, but I'll guess that unequal treatment of states is part of it. What would be the basis for overturning a law prohibiting gambling across state lines? Regulation of interstate commerce is one of the powers specifically granted to the federal government, so the law would have to conflict with some other part of the constitution.

"borderline violating my First Amendment rights"

How do you figure that? A blanket prohibition against a particular interstate activity on every day of the week certainly doesn't run afoul of religious freedom (and the court upheld blue laws that very clearly developed from a religious basis, albeit almost 60 years ago). Actions can certainly be protected speech, but I'm not seeing the argument that interstate wagering is a form of protected speech. Peaceful assembly? I'd love to hear an argument for that.

That's not to say that the court wouldn't just decide they don't like the law and come up with some tortured logic to justify the decision, but what's the legitimate argument?

eddessaknight's avatareddessaknight

No doubt for gamers nationwide, this is finally a winner for most states over as the wheel of progress like the roulette keeps spinning.....

 

Pro-Player & FairGame Advocate

Eddessa_Knight with Freedom's Light Sun Smiley

Stack47

Quote: Originally posted by KY Floyd on May 14, 2018

"that antiquated 1962 law prohibiting lottery sales across state lines"

I haven't seen the reasoning behind the ruling in the current case, but I'll guess that unequal treatment of states is part of it. What would be the basis for overturning a law prohibiting gambling across state lines? Regulation of interstate commerce is one of the powers specifically granted to the federal government, so the law would have to conflict with some other part of the constitution.

"borderline violating my First Amendment rights"

How do you figure that? A blanket prohibition against a particular interstate activity on every day of the week certainly doesn't run afoul of religious freedom (and the court upheld blue laws that very clearly developed from a religious basis, albeit almost 60 years ago). Actions can certainly be protected speech, but I'm not seeing the argument that interstate wagering is a form of protected speech. Peaceful assembly? I'd love to hear an argument for that.

That's not to say that the court wouldn't just decide they don't like the law and come up with some tortured logic to justify the decision, but what's the legitimate argument?

Sports Illustrated has a nice article explaining it.

Stack47

Quote: Originally posted by KY Floyd on May 14, 2018

"that antiquated 1962 law prohibiting lottery sales across state lines"

I haven't seen the reasoning behind the ruling in the current case, but I'll guess that unequal treatment of states is part of it. What would be the basis for overturning a law prohibiting gambling across state lines? Regulation of interstate commerce is one of the powers specifically granted to the federal government, so the law would have to conflict with some other part of the constitution.

"borderline violating my First Amendment rights"

How do you figure that? A blanket prohibition against a particular interstate activity on every day of the week certainly doesn't run afoul of religious freedom (and the court upheld blue laws that very clearly developed from a religious basis, albeit almost 60 years ago). Actions can certainly be protected speech, but I'm not seeing the argument that interstate wagering is a form of protected speech. Peaceful assembly? I'd love to hear an argument for that.

That's not to say that the court wouldn't just decide they don't like the law and come up with some tortured logic to justify the decision, but what's the legitimate argument?

Article I, Section 9 US Constitution:

"No preference shall be given by any regulation of commerce or revenue to the ports of one state over those of another:"

Not 100% sure, but that might be the reasoning behind the SC ruling.

Artist77's avatarArtist77

The analysis is in multiple places and I find it very clear reasoning. States rights,

the individual states can decide the issue, and there was no comprehensive federal law on the issue.  So, in a sense, Bleudog was on the right track.

Bleudog101

Quote: Originally posted by Artist77 on May 14, 2018

The analysis is in multiple places and I find it very clear reasoning. States rights,

the individual states can decide the issue, and there was no comprehensive federal law on the issue.  So, in a sense, Bleudog was on the right track.

First paragraph specifically states the Federal law banning this from 1992.  Glad the states can be sovereign and do as they please.  Anticipate a cash cow from the 32 current states the media just said (CBS News) considering it.

Artist77's avatarArtist77

Quote: Originally posted by Bleudog101 on May 14, 2018

First paragraph specifically states the Federal law banning this from 1992.  Glad the states can be sovereign and do as they please.  Anticipate a cash cow from the 32 current states the media just said (CBS News) considering it.

The federal law did not cover all the states...only most of the states. That was a major deciding factor.

Although I have zero interest in sports betting, I support states making their own decisions without big brother regulating everything.

Groppo's avatarGroppo

Quote: Originally posted by music* on May 14, 2018

I Agree!  Power Ball and Mega Millions are my gaming adventures. Party

.

Yes, and I've yet to hit any significant amount, from either MM or PB.
But, about a month ago, I actually hit the MM for $200. (two hundred samolians)
That little win put confidence back in my game (I'm convinced that there are larger prizes in the game.).

It was such a surprise (I actually prefer the redneck pronunciation of "sooprize").

Please don't mind my reference to "redneck", I actually got the term "sooprize" from the movie:
"Squirm", where  a Southern town becomes inundated with worms, after a series of storms.

Then, after I collected my prize, I came home, and looked up my MM win, and it turned out that "only" 775 people or something like that actually won that same amount, of all the people who played MM on that day.  The odds are mind-bogglingly slim to win anything.

Mr. Groppo

Coin Toss's avatarCoin Toss

Bookies aren't going to like this at all. 

At some point in the late 1980s Delaware flirted with sports betting. Instead of going to the actual lines makers though they had state employees guess at what the odds should be.

Word of this got out in Nevada and wise guys were flying to Delaware to profit from the skewed odds, and profit they did.

This will get interesting if it catches on though. It's said that the point spread only affects 1% of football games. Most people who bet it say that's not their experience. It takes 52.6% winners to break even thanks to the 'vig'. That is 110 to win 100. 

The bookies and sports books strive to keep a balanced book, equal action on both sides of a game. Thus the losers pay the winners and the house keeps the vig. (Vigorish). 

The real money is to be made in baseball with money line parlays, but most people bet football.

Kyle7824's avatarKyle7824

Quote: Originally posted by Coin Toss on May 14, 2018

Bookies aren't going to like this at all. 

At some point in the late 1980s Delaware flirted with sports betting. Instead of going to the actual lines makers though they had state employees guess at what the odds should be.

Word of this got out in Nevada and wise guys were flying to Delaware to profit from the skewed odds, and profit they did.

This will get interesting if it catches on though. It's said that the point spread only affects 1% of football games. Most people who bet it say that's not their experience. It takes 52.6% winners to break even thanks to the 'vig'. That is 110 to win 100. 

The bookies and sports books strive to keep a balanced book, equal action on both sides of a game. Thus the losers pay the winners and the house keeps the vig. (Vigorish). 

The real money is to be made in baseball with money line parlays, but most people bet football.

NFL 10 team parlay can pay $60,000 or more...

Thats real money to me...

Subscribe to this news story