betting in cricket supreme courtSupreme Court Kills Ban on Sports Betting. Are Trump’s Immigration Rules Next？
The Supreme Court today that the federal government can’t force states to ban sports betting.?In the short term, it’s a big win for sports betting operations that can now expand a hundredfold.?In the long term, the decision could affect everything from “sanctuary cities” to .
The short-term consequences are immediate and immense. The Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (PAPSA), which required states to maintain their historic bans, is history. Now every state—including New Jersey, which had led this fight—can now choose to legalize sports betting, which currently is only fully legal in Nevada.
Casino magnates like Sheldon Adelson and Steve Wynn, both prominent Trump supporters, may have just lost their monopolies—or they may expand into new and far larger markets.
And the big sports associations, led by the NCAA, suffered a significant setback in trying to sever their “legitimate” operations from the taint of gambling.
But the real reason the new case, Murphy v. NCAA, is so important is federalism. For much of the 20th century, federalism was a weak doctrine. Sure, the states were semi-autonomous on paper, but in practice, the federal government ruled supreme. Civil rights laws, the administrative state, social security—all of these were made possible by the Supreme Court allowing the federal government to expand.
The opposition was minimal. From the 1860s to the 1960s, “states’ rights” was practically a code word for slavery, Jim Crow, and the Confederacy. Meanwhile, the world, and the United States, was growing smaller, thanks to jet travel, telecommunications, and interstate highways. Practically all commerce became “interstate commerce,” which enabled the federal government to regulate it.
In the last few decades, though, conservatives have turned back the tide. Laws which were once taken for granted are now rolled back as federal overreach. The Tenth Amendment, once a constitutional relic, became the cornerstone of a legal philosophy limiting federal power. “States’ rights” is for real.
And it’s the basis of Murphy. Joined by Justices Kagan and Breyer, the Court’s conservatives held that the federal government can’t tell states that they have to ban sports betting because of a judicial principle known as “anti-commandeering.” Justice Alito’s opinion for the Court said that PAPSA was like having Congress sit in state legislatures, ordering legislators what to do.
Now, Congress can still ban sports betting nationwide and make it a federal offense. But what Congress cannot do is tell the states what to ban and what not to ban.
Just think about that for a moment.
Federalism is generally a conservative value. For example, the “Federalist Society” is an ultra-conservative network of lawyers, law professors, and judges that is largely responsible for the Trump administration’s unprecedented packing of the federal judiciary with hard-right conservatives. Federalism was also behind crusade against the EPA, before he was appointed to lead it.
And taken to extremes, federalism could invalidate whole swaths of the contemporary administrative state. Most environmental and civil rights laws, for example, rely on the commerce clause. But if “regulating interstate commerce” is understood narrowly rather than broadly, the commerce clause may not apply to, say, a wetland in Arkansas or a lake in North Dakota.
But Murphy shows how federalism can lead to non-conservative results as well. Of course, in the short term, it allows more gambling, which will alienate not just the NCAA but as well. The CEO of betting infrastructure provider Sportradar, which stands to win big under the new regime, told The Daily Beast that Murphy is a “landmark decision” and “seismic shift.”
More importantly, though, if Congress can’t tell states to ban sports betting, how can the Trump administration threaten to withhold funds to states or cities who have chosen to become “sanctuary cities” and not share information with federal immigration agents? How can the Sessions-led Justice Department restart the drug war, penalizing states for legalizing marijuana?
We’ve already seen federalist logic at work in the immigration context. Last year, for example, the Ninth Circuit with the state of Washington against Trump’s travel ban, in part on federalism grounds, and a district court Trump’s attempt to withhold money from sanctuary cities, also on federalism grounds.
And federalism has, in recent years, contributed to the line of cases guaranteeing the right to marriage for gay as well as straight people. In 2012, for example, the Defense of Marriage Act was because marriage was a matter for the states, not the federal government.
Cases like these are likely to increase in the coming years. In general, states have turned into defenders of progressive values against the Trump administration, rather than defenders of conservative values against the Obama administration.
And in that context, Murphy may turn out to be a boon.
betting in cricket supreme courtSupreme Court Kills Ban on Sports Betting. Are Trump’s Immigration Rules Next？
betting in cricket supreme courtSupreme Court lets states legalize sports betting, rules federal ban unconstitutional
site: betting in cricket supreme courtSupreme Court Kills Ban on Sports Betting. Are Trump’s Immigration Rules Next？ media | arena: general | pageType: stories |
section: | slug: supreme-court-lets-states-legalize-sports-betting-rules-federal-ban-unconstitutional | sport: other | route: article_single.us |
betting in cricket supreme courtSupreme Court of India Supports Sports Betting to Combat Illegal Gambling
Whether or not to allow legal sports betting is a hotly debated topic in many parts of the world these days. On the one hand, there are proponents of sports betting stating that allowing regulated wagering cuts down on crime and provides revenues for governments. On the other, there are opponents who worry that sports betting causes gambling addiction, and that it can lead to corruption in professional sports, ruining the integrity of games. The arguments for and against sports betting is currently a hotly debated subject in India, and it’s beginning to look like the government may turn toward the pro sport betting stance.
In India, lotteries and horse racing wagers are generally permitted, while sports betting and online gambling are ruled to be against the law. Having said that, it is left to the individual states to decide whether or not to allow gambling, but to date just three of India’s 29 states and 7 union territories have taken the expanded gambling route, namely Goa, Daman, and Sikkim. According to estimates, India’s gambling market is worth roughly $60 billion per year, $20 billion of which is generated by illegal gambling operations.
Rampant Illegal Betting
Because the nation now has a quickly developing economy, more people in India have money to spend on leisure activities, and according to reports, many Indians are using their extra money to place wagers on sporting events. Experts estimate that $150 billion is spent on illegal sports betting every year. Every one-day international game that the Indian cricket team plays reportedly brings in $200 million in bets alone. Consequently, more lawmakers are beginning to seriously consider it an advantageous move for India to legalize betting on cricket to bring in revenues for government coffers. As Aryama Sundaram, counsel for the Board Of Control For Cricket In India (BCCI) explains:
“Betting on sports is done all over the world through legal channels. It is normally accepted behavior and pattern to bet on sports. Not making it legal results only in making normally law abiding people act in an illegal manner.”
A Formal Review
To examine the positive and negative impacts of legalizing sports betting, India’s Supreme Court appointed a panel of three experts, including the former Chief Justice of the Indian Supreme Court, RM Lodha. The panel spent a full year studying illegal sports betting and the Board of Control for Cricket in India, which oversees professional cricket in the country of 1.25 billion people. Then, the panel wrote a formal report and submitted it to the court. The report found the following:
1: Sports Betting Would Be Beneficial
The panel felt that legalizing sports betting on cricket would dramatically reduce illegal activity in India and provide a continuous stream of income for Indian states.
2: Regulations Would Be Needed
The panel stated that in order to keep the game of cricket ethical, laws would need to be fixed to make fixing games an offense punishable by law.
3: Bettors Would Need Rules as Well
The panel also stated that people who profit from cricket would need to be banned from placing sports bets in order to keep the game fair.
4: Changes Must Be Made to the Control Board
The panel concluded that in order for sports betting to be successfully regulated, changes would need to be made to the current Board of Control for Cricket in India. The panel expressed concerns that the board as it currently exists would not be able to properly control the sport and crack down on illegal behavior. As a result, the panel made recommendations for the reorganization of the board.
Prospects of Success
With some Indian states assessing tax rates as high as 20 percent on horse racing and billions being spent on sports betting already in the country, it’s clear that there could be a lot of positives to legalizing wagering on cricket in the country. Only time will tell whether or not lawmakers will agree and decide to follow the recommendations of the panel. In the meantime, some of the country’s top lawmakers and politicians seem to back the findings of the Lodha committee report, including former Union Law Minister Kapil Sibal, senior Supreme Court advocate KTS Tulsi, and Dushyant Dave, President of the Supreme Court Bar Association, betting in cricket supreme courtSupreme Court Kills Ban on Sports Betting. Are Trump’s Immigration Rules Next？ who commented:
“This is hypocrisy. Virtually in every other democratic country betting is legal. Making it legal would remove unnecessary evils and false persecution and prosecution. It would generate a healthy trend towards gaming and will be well regulated.”
betting in cricket supreme courtSupreme Court orders release of ‘Bikini Killer’ Charles Sobhraj ：： Nepal Minute ：： Nepal Minute
The Supreme Court has ordered the release of French serial killer Charles Sobhraj on the grounds of old age and failing health.
Sobhraj, 78, has been serving time in a Kathmandu jail since 2003 on the charges of murdering two American tourists.
A division bench of Justices Sapana Pradhan Malla and Til Prasad Shrestha issued the order on Wednesday. The court also ordered his deportation within 15 days of his release.
In response to a writ petition on a show cause order, the justices mentioned that Sobhraj was under medication for heart disease.
"If it is not necessary to imprison him for other cases, he needs to be released. And arrangements should be made to deport him to his home country within 15 days," the court order stated, urging the authority concerned to send the message to the Prison Office through the district court.
"He has also served 75 per cent (19 years) of his jail term. So, it is unreasonable to keep him in prison from the viewpoints of the constitution, legal rights, and human rights of prisoners," it said.
In 2003, the District Court, Bhaktapur issued an order of life imprisonment along with confiscation of all property of Sobhraj over the murders of two American tourists.
Sobhraj gained the infamous monikers 'Bikini Killer' and 'Serpent' for allegedly betting in cricket supreme courtSupreme Court Kills Ban on Sports Betting. Are Trump’s Immigration Rules Next？ committing murders, the designations attributed to his victims being discovered wearing just bikinis and his proficiency at eluding prosecution.