Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Supreme Court Strikes Down Federal Law Prohibiting Sports Gambling (espn.com)

Posted by msmash on from the new-rules dept.

The Supreme Court has struck down a 1992 federal law that effectively prevented most states from legalizing sports betting, clearing up a legal gray area and opening a door for state governments to join in what has become a lucrative industry. From a report: The court ruled 6-3 to strike down the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (PAPSA), a 1992 law that 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.

States that want to offer legal sports betting may now do so, and New Jersey plans to be first. Delaware, Mississippi, New York, Pennsylvania and West Virginia are among the states expected to quickly get into the legal bookmaking game.

28 of 171 comments (clear)

  1. Another one bites the dust... by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Good. Another law regulating harmless activities between consenting adults bites the dust...

    1. Re:Another one bites the dust... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Gambling is harmless. Gambling more than you can afford is not, but that is the problem of the gambler, and does not require legislation.

    2. Re:Another one bites the dust... by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 3, Insightful

      A tax is involuntary. No one is being forced to bet on sports or pay a fine/go to jail.

    3. Re: Another one bites the dust... by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'd be all for banning spending public funds on stadium construction, since taxpayers are being forced to support PRIVATE sports teams. But betting is voluntary. Don't want to pay? Don't place the bet, problem solved.

    4. Re: Another one bites the dust... by SirSlud · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well, it's also the problem of his or her children, family, etc. I'm not arguing one way or the other, but people do not exist in vacuums.

      --
      "Old man yells at systemd"
    5. Re: Another one bites the dust... by SirSlud · · Score: 2

      States regulate gambling because it can be an extremely addictive vice a non tiny portion of the population gets hooked on.

      --
      "Old man yells at systemd"
    6. Re: Another one bites the dust... by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 2

      States can still regulate it. Better yet, tax it and use part of the tax revenue to pay for treatment programs for problem gamblers.

    7. Re:Another one bites the dust... by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 5, Informative

      Good. Another law regulating harmless activities between consenting adults bites the dust...

      Gambling doesn't occur in a vacuum.

      Studies: Casinos bring jobs, but also crime, bankruptcy, and even suicide

      --
      Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    8. Re:Another one bites the dust... by Locke2005 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Gambling is a tax on people that don't understand probability and statistics!

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    9. Re:Another one bites the dust... by squiggleslash · · Score: 2

      Meh, leaving aside the major questions about gambling and its known addictive and destructive nature, you're assuming that SCOTUS found all laws about gambling to be unconstitutional. They didn't. What they did find was that the Federal law outlawing gambling was unconstitutional because of the way it was written, essentially forcing the states to ban gambling themselves.

      Regardless of what happens now, state laws outlawing gambling will remain constitutional. And it's probable other Federal laws outlawing gambling would be upheld, as long as they don't impose any duties upon the states.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    10. Re:Another one bites the dust... by jwhyche · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Studies can also show that virtually anything that brings jobs will bring crime. But studies also show that you can't legislate morality, or at least you shouldn't. This is another attempt to do just that. Good riddance.

      --
      I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
    11. Re:Another one bites the dust... by Obfuscant · · Score: 5, Insightful

      But studies also show that you can't legislate morality, or at least you shouldn't.

      Every law deals with morality. Even the ones against murder. "Thou Shall Not Kill" is a moral statement. So is "don't steal". What one can do in a contractual framework, ditto.

      The sports gambling laws are there because gambling on sports games leads to attempts to rig those games. Point shaving, for example. This is not a hypothesis, it is why the laws were created in the first place. History shows it happens.

      Those who forget history tend to repeat it.

    12. Re: Another one bites the dust... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      People who are hooked on drugs commit crimes to ensure their future supply of those drugs. You can say "not my problem" but eventually they will make it your problem. In the end analysis, it is often cheaper to pay to rehabilitate them than to simply keep imprisoning them and dealing with the societal damage they cause when back out on the streets. Addicts who die are actually the least of your problem.

      Drug addicts ruin (and sometimes end) the lives of innocent people. What price do you put on that? When your brother or son ends up dead because some junkie killed him in a mugging-gone-bad, are you just going to say "damn idiot junkie"

      We regulate vices because people with vices do bad things to other innocent citizens.

    13. Re: Another one bites the dust... by cayenne8 · · Score: 2

      We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

      Straight from the Preamble. Nothing that suits your Nietzchean world view. Instead, rather the opposite.

      ' Funny, nowhere in that preamble, nor IN the actual Constitution, do I find where the US government (the feds) are charged with protecting you from yourself amongst the limited, enumerated roles and responsibilities it has from said document.

      The government is setup, to be minimal....to set the framework for our US citizens to have the freedom to pursue happiness, that means for the feds to protect our borders, to negotiate with the rest of the world, and the feds and the states, to have law and order, to protect against robbery, murder, etc...crimes...so that you are FREE to have that LIBERTY to pursue happiness in your life, whatever that may be, unencumbered.

      Nowhere in there do I see that the government should be telling you what and what not to do with your own freaking body, or your time or your money.

      Of course we find some things that are and have to be illegal, but for the most part, the government should keep up the framework, and then stay mostly the fuck out of the lives of its citizenry.

      Its not there set up to take care of you...but to allow you the freedom to take care of yourself and live whatever life you wish to the fullest measure you can find to do so.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    14. Re:Another one bites the dust... by jwhyche · · Score: 2

      Look up studies on the war on drugs and tell me if that was successful? How about laws against prostitution? Have they made the problem, that was never a problem to begin with, better or worse? What is your feelings on the past about laws banning homosexuality? Was that a good thing?

      No the state can't and shouldn't try to legislate moral issues into and out of existence. Regulate and moderate for public safety, yes, but not into and out of existence.

      --
      I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
    15. Re:Another one bites the dust... by lexman098 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It sounds like you don't really understand gambling addiction. It's a mental condition similar to alcoholism. I don't think we should outright ban it (or alcohol), but it's naive to dismiss those negatively affected by it saying "meh, no one put a gun to your head".

    16. Re: Another one bites the dust... by mnemotronic · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The government is not (supposed to be) here to be a nanny over the populace, and protect them from their own idiocy.

      Which is exactly why the government should stop warning people about the dangers of drugs. Stop the nanny state. If people are too stupid to realize there is a good chance they will die from using drugs, that's their problem.

      While I agree with the basics, in my experience, real life gets a little fuzzy around the edges. How about if what I do might affect someone else? Like if I take drugs while pregnant and my child ends up with birth defects? Maybe it was the fentanyl or the booze. Might have been the heroin. Prove it. Society still has an addicted mother on it's hands, and now it has a very sick baby too.

      And I have a problem with the "too stupid to realize" idea. It's easy to throw stones. Most addicts know what they're doing isn't right, while they're doing it, but the power of addiction takes over the brain. Normal logic is background noise to the GOTTA FUCKING HAVE IT AND I'LL KILL YOU IF YOU GET IN MY WAY. People who haven't been addicted can never comprehend the weird mind fucks that go on and overpowering, irresistible body aching attraction.

      The same goes for publicly-funded drug rehab. It's not the government's responsibility to force other people to pay for your idiocy.

      At some point society draws a line that says "We'll do something about it if you are this sick or this bad, but not before". Everyone has their own idea of where the line goes; who gets covered; who doesn't; which criminals get locked up; which go free; which get a promotion and fat bonus check. In the end we get a line drawn by representatives whose real motivations we can only guess at. Then the rest of us get to complain about how unfair the line is while avoiding an honest examination of our own motivations.

      --
      The Russians have won. They have made the world a cesspool of distrust, greed, fear and hate.
    17. Re: Another one bites the dust... by pedz · · Score: 2, Funny

      In Steve Wright monotone:

      people do not exist in vacuums.

      they couldn't breath.

    18. Re: Another one bites the dust... by Type44Q · · Score: 2
      With this in mind, we need to scrutinize and regulate every fucking purchase and transaction that anyone can make, to be certain that one party isn't taking advantage of the subconscious state of the other party.

      Or you could shoot yourself; I'm all for the latter.

    19. Re:Another one bites the dust... by jwhyche · · Score: 2

      Well yes, it is my cherry picked subjects because there would be to many to list. It was actually the list I pulled off the top of my head.

      But the point is still valid. Government shouldn't try to legislate these issue.

      --
      I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
    20. Re:Another one bites the dust... by jwhyche · · Score: 2

      Why is it that people expect to be taken as knowledgeable about anything when they can't handle sixth grade spelling reliably.

      Seriously, why is it important for someone to point out every little spelling and grammar mistake someone makes? It is not important in an informal discussion, which slashdot is. You don't even know if English is a 1st, 3rd or even 4th language of the original poster. Hell you don't even know if the original poster is human. He could be a incredibly talented gibbon.

      In days of Usenet it was actually considered very rude to point out grammar and spelling mistakes.

      --
      I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
  2. Makes sense by slapout · · Score: 3, Funny

    Because if there's anything that will keep politicians honest, it's gambling

    --
    Coder's Stone: The programming language quick ref for iPad
  3. New Jersey was self-inflicted by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 4, Interesting

    States that want to offer legal sports betting may now do so, and New Jersey plans to be first

    The law that was just overturned was written in such a way so that NJ could get exempted along with Nevada (so could any other states that wanted to), they just had to fill out paperwork/legalize it before a deadline. It was obvious Atlantic City would want sports betting, so the federal law assumed NJ would make it legal. But the state legislature really fell down, and hence for 26 years it's been trying to undo that mistake.

    --
    Your ad here. Ask me how!
  4. Blatant corruption? by Locke2005 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'm more concerned that the swamp managed to pass a law giving Nevada exclusive rights to sports gambling! How doe$ that happen?

    --
    I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
  5. The law was kind of sneaky by rsilvergun · · Score: 4, Insightful

    it didn't ban sports gambling, it make it illegal for the States to lift their existing bans. That way Nevada (who lobbied for the law) could keep right on gambling.

    I'd love to see gambling fully legalized. The Casino operators are crazy rich and use their money to buy all kinds of influence. It'd be nice to see some of that power broke up even a little bit.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  6. Re:Climate Bet by Tulsa_Time · · Score: 2

    Can they adjust the raw data last... after the Government does ?

    --
    5 out of 6 people enjoy Russian Roulette & 6 out of 7 Dwarfs are not Happy
  7. Damn it, I betted against this by jfdavis668 · · Score: 4, Funny

    My hobby. Betting on the outcome of Supreme Court cases.

  8. Where's Biff Tannen? by Heebie · · Score: 3, Funny

    Wasn't it Biff Tannen who was supposed to get these laws overturned? Several years ago?