Smart Money Is on New Jersey in Sports-Gambling Case

It ’s never smart to bet on the outcome of Supreme Court cases, but if I had to wager on thebig federalism case disguised as a dispute over sports books, I ’d double-down on New Jersey in its fight against professional sports and the U.S. government. InChristie v. NCAA, argued this morning, I ’ll give decent odds that the state will prevail on its claim that the federal law that prevents states from legalizing sports-betting is unconstitutional because it “commandeers” state officials to enforce federal policy. By my best count, the vote should be 6-3, with Justices Ruth Bader Gins burg, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan in dissent.Most striking was Justice Anthony Kennedy ’s first question to the sports leagues’ super-lawyer Paul Clement. To paraphrase: How can it be that states don’t want a particular state law and Congress tells them they can’t repeal it? Justice Kennedy is known for being a big fan of constitutional structure as a goalkeeper of individual liberty, so if he views this as that kind of case, then here he will not be the “human jump-ball” of his critics’ description.The newest member of Supreme Court bar discusses the argument.Chief Justice John Roberts had similar qualms about the plays that the federal law ’s defenders ran. Is it really the case, he seemed to say, that sports-betting becomes federally illegal only if made legal under state law? In other words, it’s a constitutional end-run for Congress to tell states they have to ...
Source: Cato-at-liberty - Category: American Health Authors: Source Type: blogs