"Monday's U.S. Supreme Court decision regarding the state's rights to permit sports betting is important to New Jersey's harness racing industry". But the ruling was not quite the vindication of state sovereignty that it appeared to be.
"State leaders need to be prepared to tell the truth about the economic predation of casino gambling", he told Baptist Press in written comments.
"The legalization of sports gambling requires an important policy choice, but the choice is not ours to make". Of course, The Baltimore Sun sees this ruling not as a potential increase in the freedom of the people but as a new source of income to the state government.
"The PASPA provision at issue here-prohibiting state authorization of sports gambling-violates the anticommandeering rule".
Oklahoma lawmakers came close to doing it this session with a House Bill, allowing ball and dice games at casinos. That provision unequivocally dictates what a state legislature may and may not do.
More than a dozen states had supported New Jersey, which argued that Congress exceeded its authority when it passed the 1992 Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act, barring states from authorizing sports betting. Outside court, however, leaders of all but the National Football League have shown varying degrees of openness to legalized sports gambling. Associate Justice Stephen Breyer joined in most of the majority opinion but also signed onto the dissent with Associate Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor.