# SCOTUS strikes down federal anti-gambling law **URL:** \ **Category:** Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share\ **Created:** [May 14, 2018, 4:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-strikes-down-federal-anti-gambling-law/814144 "2018-05-14T16:12:50Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 8\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2018, 4:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-strikes-down-federal-anti-gambling-law/814144/1 "2018-05-14T16:12:50Z")
[Story here](https://apnews.com/f3fa1f71b8f44378a7e2c51d321b13b4/Supreme-Court-makes-sports-betting-a-possibility-nationwide): > [@](#): > > The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 to strike down the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act. The 1992 law barred state-authorized sports gambling with some exceptions. It made Nevada the only state where a person could wager on the results of a single game. > > One research firm estimated before the ruling that if the Supreme Court were to strike down the law, 32 states would likely offer sports betting within five years. > > “The legalization of sports gambling requires an important policy choice, but the choice is not ours to make. 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,” Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the court. So Las Vegas will soon lose it’s exclusivity with regards to sports betting, perhaps as soon as a couple of weeks from now. I haven’t had time to read up on the case and find out what it was about the PASPA that caused it to be struck down; anyone care to comment on that? ---
**Author:** ![sevenwood](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/6de8d8/32.png) [@sevenwood](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sevenwood)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2018, 4:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-strikes-down-federal-anti-gambling-law/814144/2 "2018-05-14T16:19:32Z")
T[his NBC News article](https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-allows-sports-betting-across-country-n868956) explains the reasoning. Apparently it has to do with the wording of the ban, which requires the states to enforce the ban rather than having the federal government enforce it. That apparently violates the tenth amendment of the constitution. ---
**Author:** ![Shagnasty](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9dc877/32.png) [@Shagnasty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shagnasty)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2018, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-strikes-down-federal-anti-gambling-law/814144/3 "2018-05-14T16:39:25Z")
I don’t do anything other than casual sports gambling but I agree with the decision. The former law effectively banning it in almost all states is not within the federal government’s domain or power. ---
**Author:** ![Velocity](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/velocity/32/18006_2.png) [@Velocity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Velocity)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2018, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-strikes-down-federal-anti-gambling-law/814144/4 "2018-05-14T20:08:19Z")
Hope this frees up online sports gambling pronto. ---
**Author:** ![Regallag\_The\_Axe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/regallag_the_axe/32/445_2.png) [@Regallag\_The\_Axe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Regallag_The_Axe)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2018, 8:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-strikes-down-federal-anti-gambling-law/814144/5 "2018-05-14T20:19:18Z")
I saw this earlier, and was curious about the details. According to the article **sevenwood** linked to it was, “a federal law that required states to ban gambling on the outcome of sporting events.” If that’s an accurate description it’s blatantly unconstitutional. I can’t imagine how it got passed or how it lasted twenty-six years. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2018, 9:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-strikes-down-federal-anti-gambling-law/814144/6 "2018-05-14T21:21:54Z")
> [@Regallag\_The\_Axe](#): > > I saw this earlier, and was curious about the details. According to the article **sevenwood** linked to it was, “a federal law that required states to ban gambling on the outcome of sporting events.” If that’s an accurate description it’s blatantly unconstitutional. I can’t imagine how it got passed or how it lasted twenty-six years. There are federal bans on all sorts of things that the states must abide by . I am not sure why the SCOTUS deemed this different unless they mean to start swatting down any number of federal bans. Is it just semantics that they told the states to ban it rather than just banning sports gambling altogether (except in Nevada) and relying on the supremacy clause to do the work for them? ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2018, 9:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-strikes-down-federal-anti-gambling-law/814144/7 "2018-05-14T21:28:56Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > There are federal bans on all sorts of things that the states must abide by . I am not sure why the SCOTUS deemed this different unless they mean to start swatting down any number of federal bans. … One can hope. ---
**Author:** ![ISiddiqui](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/97f17d/32.png) [@ISiddiqui](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ISiddiqui)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2018, 9:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-strikes-down-federal-anti-gambling-law/814144/8 "2018-05-14T21:33:56Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > There are federal bans on all sorts of things that the states must abide by . I am not sure why the SCOTUS deemed this different unless they mean to start swatting down any number of federal bans. There is a difference in the states having to abide by federal bans and the federal government requiring the states to take affirmative action. The later is considered [Commandeering](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commandeering) and is unconstitutional.