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: ‘Crazy Bernie’ is at it again

There he goes again. Despite the lowest unemployment rate in 17 years, including declining rates for minorities, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), affectionately called “crazy Bernie” by some conservative talk show hosts, is again flirting with the idea that the federal government should guarantee every American a job, paying a minimum of $15...
Opinion: A new Mitt or the same old weenie?

Right now you’re probably asking yourselves — How is Mitt Romney doing? You know he’s running for the Senate in Utah, right? It’s going to be one of the really big races this fall. OK, possibly not as riveting as the Republican primary in West Virginia, which features a former coal mining executive who hopes voters will be so...
Opinion: America’s unsustainable empire

Before President Trump trashes the Iran nuclear deal, he might consider: If he could negotiate an identical deal with Kim Jong Un, it would astonish the world and win him the Nobel Peace Prize. For Iran has no nuclear bomb or ICBM and has never tested either. It has cameras inside and inspectors crawling all over its nuclear facilities. And North Korea?...
Opinion: Macron on Trumpism — Non!

WASHINGTON — The early story line about President Trump and French President Emmanuel Macron focused on their “bromance” and Trump’s puerile claim to dominance when he brushed what he said was dandruff off Macron’s suit. But on the last day of his state visit on Wednesday, Macron showed he will not be trifled with. He...
COMMENTARY: Ohio voters get to weigh in on gerrymandering

There is little debate about whether Americans are dissatisfied with their government. The latest Gallup polling shows about six in 10 Americans disapprove of the job being done by the president we elected fewer than 18 months ago. And Congress fares worse: More than four of every five Americans disapprove of the job being done by their elected representatives...
More Stories