From the ruling:<p>> Congress can regulate sports gambling directly, but if it
elects not to do so, each State is free to act on its own. Our
job is to interpret the law Congress has enacted and decide
whether it is consistent with the Constitution. PASPA is
not. PASPA “regulate[s] state governments’ regulation” of
their citizens.... The Constitution
gives Congress no such power.<p><a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-476_dbfi.pdf" rel="nofollow">https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-476_dbfi.pdf</a><p>I don't quite understand what they're saying here...I guess the idea is that Congress can regulate gambling -- assuming some constitutional justification like the commerce clause -- but they can't restrict what laws states pass? (Of course, per drinking ages, they can tax states citizens and then release that tax money back to the states conditional on state s enacting certain laws.)<p>Here is extensive coverage on the excellent SCOTUSblog<p><a href="http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/murphy-v-national-collegiate-athletic-association-2/" rel="nofollow">http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/murphy-v-national...</a><p>Other HN submission (Bloomberg article):<p><a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17065652" rel="nofollow">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17065652</a>
Does anyone know if this means for general predication markets?<p>The only reasons I've found blockchain at all interesting is for the creation of combinatorial prediction markets. If gambling laws are getting lax enough in some states to allow centralized prediction markets, my interest will wane to zero.
This is super interesting. Seems like the real ruling is that the federal government can’t compel states to implement/enforce non-federal laws. I wonder if that will affect things like the drinking age...
Alito wrote for the majority, joined by Thomas, Gorsuch, Roberts, Kagan and Kennedy.<p>Breyer dissented in part.<p>Ginsberg and Sotomayor dissented completely.
The article is a bit light on details, but it sounds like this doesn't automatically legalize sports betting. Rather, it allows states to legalize it, which at least 20 states intend to do.
I think one thing not yet discussed much here is that state authorized gambling is generally akin to a regressive tax, that is the state gets the benefits of new funds, but mainly from the poor, not from the rich.
Ooooo, I hope the next federal law changes our countries name from "The United States of America" to "Russia"! P.S. please let's all stop supporting our government making more laws. They are shit at it, and we should have MORE freedom, not less. Then we can enjoy life and do stuff, ya know?
Would this ruling potentially affect federal drug laws? I say this because some US states have chosen to legalize marijuana, despite it remaining illegal at the federal level. This seems like a similar kind of situation.
It's certainly an interesting judgement.. Whereas Congress can "regulate" and not at the same time. Long story short, it looks like more gambling is in.<p>And the longer view, is more people will be impoverished with more easy to obtain gambling. Sure, a few will win it big, and they will be flaunted out for the city/state/US to see. But on whole, more people will be harmed with this.<p>But I'm sure it shovels money around sufficiently, making the GDP look like it grew by a .1% Good 'ol "Parable of the Broken Window", at it again.