New Jersey Likely Won First Round in Sports Betting Battle in US Supreme Court

Yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court court heard the first oral arguments in Christie v NCAA. If you're not familiar with this case, New Jersey is trying to overturn the federal sports beeting ban, the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act of 1992 (PASPA). The law blocks states from legalizing sports gambling within their own borders. The state of New Jersey asserts that this is a violation of the 10th Amendment because four states, primarily Nevada, were grandfathered in and able to still offer legal sports betting in their states. (My latest article with The American Conservative has many interesting background details on the case.)

Las Vegas Sportsbooks such as this one may get some competition in the future, depending upon the outcome of Christie v NCAA. (Image via Wikimedia Commons)

Make no mistake, the federal ban on sports gambling could easily be overturned in a conservative Supreme Court (5 Republicans - 4 Democrats). The reason is that Christie v NCAA is a states' rights battle, not a gambling issue. And, generally, the conservative viewpoint supports states' rights.


The transcript shows that three of the liberal Justices (Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Kagan) began with an aggressive line of questioning for Theodore B. Olson who was arguing on behalf of New Jersey. (Olson served as the Solicitor General during the George W. Bush administration.) However, the left-of-center Justice Stephen Breyer seemed to show his leaning from the beginning. He seemed to be making Olson's case for him by, at one point, citing the Airline Deregulation Act. However, Breyer later pivoted and essentially pointed to other issues in favor of New Jersey's case.

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer - Wikimedia Commons

As usual, Clarence Thomas didn't speak, but he's a strong advocate for states' rights. His four conservative counterparts seemingly signaled their support of New Jersey's case with their questioning. And, in the end, nearly every legal analyst believes at least five and maybe six Justices will vote to overturn PASPA. That includes sports law expert and media figure, Daniel Wallach, who believes that it is 6 to 3 in favor of New Jersey. Wallach believes that it will go according to party lines, other than Breyer who will rule in favor of New Jersey.

Likewise, in a more sports betting friendly format, Dustin Gouker of the Legal Sports Report set a fictional over/under on the number of Justices leaning in favor of New Jersey at 5.5.

So far, so good. We'll have to see how this proceeds. Hopefully, this senseless, crony capitalist federal sports betting ban will be overturned.

Likely Attorney General Jeff Sessions: A Proud Soldier in the Drug War

Will his appointment ruin the progress of the legalization movement?

Trump's nomination of Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) to be the next Attorney General hasn't been welcomed by liberals and progressive groups, to say the least. Most of this criticism relates to his comments that resulted in losing a nomination for a federal judgeship in the 1980s. He stated that the NAACP and ACLU were "un-American...communist-inspired...and tried to force civil rights down the people's throats." Sessions testified that the comments were taken out of context, but the most severe damage to his reputation came from his comments about the KKK. In private, Sessions said that he felt the KKK was "OK until he found that they smoked marijuana." He claimed that his words were just a joke. One witness backed up his claim while another felt that his words were sincere. In fairness, it's difficult to believe that anyone would make such a statement in a serious tone. Also, Sessions was instrumental in the prosecution and eventual murder conviction of a leading member of the KKK. Regardless, it is impossible to support his nomination for Attorney General due to his poor civil rights record alone.

How will he affect the drug policy? Well, he's an outspoken advocate of the drug war. You've probably come across some of his memorable quotes over the last few days. If you're not familiar, he has criticized President Obama, on multiple occasions, for stating that marijuana is less dangerous than alcohol. One instance in 2014, Sessions noted that "Lady Gaga says that she is addicted to it." In April he declared that "good people don't smoke marijuana." Sessions even conflated marijuana with more dangerous drugs like heroin in this clip from 2015. He also speaks proudly of his efforts in the drug war and hearkens for the days of the Just-Say-No  80s.

With that said, Sessions has, at times, acted in a very reasonable manner regarding the drug war. Check out this funny clip. 

He was one of the Senate leaders to push for reducing the penalties for crack cocaine in comparison to powder cocaine. These laws have unjustly punished the economically poor and minorities since the 1980s. Sessions was also a supporter of the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act (CARA), which was a harm reduction bill aimed at the opioid crisis. 

CONCLUSION 

There was a false narrative in the media that the Obama administration didn't interfere with the legal marijuana industry. Several law-abiding dispensaries were raided by the DEA. Also, many of these businesses were punished with civil asset forfeitures by federal agencies and the IRS has been known to target these dispensaries with obscure money laundering statutes. Hence, Jeff Sessions, most likely, won't be much more adversarial to the legal marijuana industry than Eric Holder. After all, eight out of nine states passed their legal marijuana ballot measures (recreational or medical) this month. Suffice it to say, that's a mandate by the electorate. In addition, Trump stated that he would respect states' rights with the marijuana issue during the campaign. And if there is one thing that Donald Trump respects it is polling numbers and sixty percent of Americans now support legalized marijuana. 

On the other hand, both Trump and Sessions often point to the flow of drugs from Mexico as one of the key issues in our country. Sessions will likely be the "law and order" official that Trump was looking for. In other words, Sessions will likely be much more punitive with illegal drug trafficking. He will probably reverse much of the progress from softening "three strikes laws" and mandatory minimum sentences. Look no further than his statement from March of this year:

"Indeed, (President Obama) instructs his Justice Department not to prosecute drug traffickers, or, if pursuing charges, to prosecute for lesser crimes. He also is pushing leniency and early release for thousands of convicted drug criminals despite Bureau of Justice Statistics showing 99.7 percent of imprisoned drug felons were convicted of drug trafficking offenses, not drug possession. This abandonment of the tough-on-crime policies that led to drastic reductions in drugs and crime beginning in the 1980s is directly contributing to the rise in drug use, overdose deaths and violent crimes in major cities."