SCOTUS Feigns Federalism in Sports Betting Decision

Thursday, 17 May, 2018

The ruling moves the "anti-commandeering doctrine" more into the mainstream and moves some of the most controversial subjects of this controversial time from Congress into state legislatures. But he also said that if the state asked him to slow down on rolling out sports betting, he would.

"The PASPA provision at issue here-prohibiting state authorization of sports gambling-violates the anticommandeering rule".

The Supreme Court ruled that the federal government can not constitutionally ban gambling on sports, following the Tenth Amendment and returning that power to the states.

Five states - Connecticut, Mississippi, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and West Virginia - already had enacted laws in preparation for a Supreme Court decision permitting legalization, according to ESPN.

In July 2017, Gov. Dannel Malloy signed a bill that will allow the state to move quickly if the federal sports betting ban is overturned by the Supreme Court or repealed by Congress.

"State leaders need to be prepared to tell the truth about the economic predation of casino gambling [and] pastors and church leaders need to be prepared to pastor their flock through the fallout that the court's decision is sure to produce".

The Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention has also taken issue with the recent ruling.

The Supreme Court's ruling Monday authorizing state-sanctioned sports betting could have profound implications for a host of other issues.

It's not like casino gaming is struggling in Oklahoma. "And this is true under either our interpretation or that advocated by respondents and the United States", wrote Justice Alito.

A LifeWay Research study released in 2016 reported 49 percent of Americans said sports gambling should not be legalized in the country, while 40 percent thought it should.