US Supreme Court Strikes Down PASPA Gambling Restrictions


Andrew Donaldson

Born and raised in West Virginia, Andrew has since lived and traveled around the world several times over. Though frequently writing about politics out of a sense of duty and love of country, most of the time he would prefer discussions on history, culture, occasionally nerding on aviation, and his amateur foodie tendencies. He can usually be found misspelling/misusing words on Twitter @four4thefire and his writing website

Related Post Roulette

5 Responses

  1. Avatar Kolohe says:

    I got to think on balance this isn’t going to shift that much Nevada action to other states, but rather bring the existing grey market action (and new action) into legitimate establishments that are already pretty much coast to coast.

    I imagine it’s also going to be like the poker room expansion (now over 15 years ago). A boom of new venues due to legality and novelity, then a retrenchment as the novelty wears off and the relative weak margins from running a game with slow throughput become apparent. Then an equilibrium of regular players with the periodic tourist.

    (it’s also going to do Atlantic city no good if Foxwoods, Dover Downs, and the now formidable Maryland casino ecosystem have all the same plays, in a far less scuzzy environment)Report

    • Avatar greginak in reply to Kolohe says:

      Yeah basically this. Gambling on sports, mostly football, is common and widespread. This just makes is legal. The compulsive gamblers have and will gamble on every darn sport regardless of legality. They don’t go to vegas to gamble since they already do it where they live. They may like vegas but they don’t have to go there to lose their money.Report

  2. Avatar Jaybird says:

    Gambling, shmambling. What does this mean for Federal Marijuana legislation?

    That’s because New Jersey argued, and the Supreme Court ultimately agreed, that PASPA violated the “anti-commandeering doctrine,” a somewhat controversial legal theory that says Congress cannot compel states to enforce federal laws in place of the federal government.

    The doctrine has become more significant in recent years as President Donald Trump has threatened to pull funding from so-called sanctuary cities that place some limits on their agreements to enforce federal immigration laws. A federal judge blocked Trump’s executive order targeting sanctuary cities in November, arguing that it violated the Constitution’s protections on separations of power, and legal experts have suggested that a ruling in favor of New Jersey in the gambling case could bolster sanctuary cities’ fight against the administration.

    The question at the heart of the gambling case also applies to city and state efforts to legalize marijuana despite federal prohibition laws, a growing movement that likely also received a boost from the Supreme Court ruling on Monday morning.