Should sports betting be legal everywhere?

Tommy Tucker, WWL First News
Wednesday, December 6th

Tommy talks to Marc Edelman, Professor of Law at the Zicklin School of Business, Baruch College, CUNY, about the Supreme Court hearing a case on sports betting.

00:10:27

Transcript - Not for consumer use. Robot overlords only. Will not be accurate.

Sports betting have you ever bet on a football game basketball game what had yet. Chances are you have I have the Supreme Court or case yesterday about allowing. States. To let people bet on football games in the legal manner and I may have butchered that up exactly as to what's going on but mark Gelman straighten me out he's professor of law. At music and school of business at the room college. See you knew why and a an adjunct professor of at forum on the mornings there. Good morning how you I'm good how big is your business cards. On it is growing which Friday the IR I could tell he had and that's this it's all in the font size professor isn't it. Court that it you've already taught us Sumpter and tell me about the professional and amateur sports protection act. Well there are a lot of it writ laws all federal state in the United States they try to stop people report ample. But the professional or amateur sports protection act is special. Booklet that was legislation that would question or bury art but or league. In 1992. It's a federal law which purport to have authority over people at all that beat state. As well the states themselves with the exception of what state that addicts are out. And what is it all the department of job that. And interestingly the more weight of them now but write the final law suit to enjoin which means to prevent. They're continuing a four game. So. It doesn't say that it's illegal it's says that the state can't allow it is that accurate or not. It is correct what technically dead is is that the department of job that. Or any professional or amateur sports league in the United States. It go to file law. Did get a court order. The stop gambling and it that expect noddle individual. Koppel with the exception of what they eat that apple corps about the state and now. And now would be a federal court and just trying to block my way through this in the audience so be it federal court in the federal court would have no other way to rule. Other than the support the federal law is that accurate that's how we wound up in front of the Supreme Court. That's correct that the federal court of course that they actually it was at like hopper it's a federal law but look what in federal court. Op now it's a court order wants to rule. In favor of the day that little island fort gambling. They would need that on one of Cuba. Either they would need the audience that the statute but it's eight what we all they did that. Or alternatively. There are some flyers in the Patrick now. That invalidate it and that it would be fired in the statute itself currently the nature it is arguing. Out would be the constitution injured are that the treated well that always predicted that cheated on content that we. Because and current professor and a student and always sometimes it's a bright and sometimes it's a wrong because the constitution. You're pretty much the in the inference on the constitution is that everything is allowed except what is expressly. Forbidden is that accurate or not. Ot its quote they're argument that a being kneed by majority. But in order. To get there on more. Common ear clause. Of the I'm amendment. Op and there's very little litigation out there involved in the common eerie Claus most people could make people call it a whack. And never even hear about that law but what the commandeer. One then. Is that the federal government. In not able well for eight state government is taking action at a federal government did go out at law that con. That it that the people on the date but in generally they could not compel the state. The pass laws that they want the state the past. And they cannot compel the state needed substantial retort is on its federal initiative. In early this goes in the old metaphor about the there's gambling in Rick's casino. As in they're good people bet on games are you kidding me. And of bad basically need in Chris Christie was up there and he wants the state to get a piece of it is what he wants him to Texas so professing yesterday's Supreme Court heard the case I'm confused did Chris Christie prison editor it was he just watching. Are true confession. I would work yesterday I would not. The Supreme Court hearing now what it would not be the are then op who would respect you would backbeat several level. Hot rumble got hot it would be paid for the state will be over the overall buddy or any general of the native new security. Any minute and the attorney general debate is not going to be. The already who litigate it out when every get you reimport level. There are you extraordinarily. Specialized. And frankly incredibly well paid attorneys. I bet Campbell look at that occasion of walking to. Court. Will be any level remove it. And along those lines you better have done your homework Jane it's some probing questions I would imagine from the justices. And does that always tip their hand is suited to the kind of questions they ask her how involved they get in which justices ask what. Are going to be very complex and now but I think for whom much. Ott is neat about how it just is yet to be lenient like you always predict that it. Op certain they'd been judged on the one. All never quite judge all the that reputation that it did their thing. I believe. In the art on it. Judges may ask why didn't it seem like built in one way to try to push a deal. Attorney to make deep particular argument that might be compelling public judges. Some might really be on there not not know the the law the minutia that not every jar you know every topic Cole and they really want you would be the belly that. Given your experience professor and and by guess what you know about the constitution then the argument that was proffered do you think the Supreme Court will. Then say so I guess legally what would happen is they would say. That. What would they say. How well it's going to be a very well. Paid very odd in its battery. Predicting he really Courtney involved sport including an American needle right. That I am worried that it. They're all being in treatment that she. Ever invalidated. An icon in your laws by the Supreme Court. But car would be. A year that she. And you wrap your issue we really do not much. Pot if I was more than one. And I believe that one judge wood that. I think to all of it. They appointed app precedent is almost compelled to rule in major. And I believe that is Oakland just to comment that historically make it any better eat raw state right. And it very narrow view of federal right. But. I'll look like that wounded the media. Judges would vote on. The all early. For. The people in the media today that the couldn't there justices who vote vote by the Hubble in. Paper state government over federal and put them on the major. Any vacuum that statement true. They're all all all historically toward earth began. Op conservative that double our administration. Made or see daddy roared interpretation of the ant like commandeer clause. Would make it very typical of Britain trump the past and it actually that would intended to compel states to arbitrator. There are so many different factors that why. I think Kate is interest and we analyze it. Op but it paid very close legal issue will really the way people opinion that it should. Professor I get a text it just popped up and I think it's a great question now landscaping give us a brief answer. And that is this vote does this have to do with legalization of marijuana in terms of the law the laws saying is it different in terms of the federal laws saying it forbids it or just that states can't legalize and an is that with the differences. It wrong in this case in paper Ager. Ike commandeer Claude. Can make out what if call. But for the federal government in the future. That passed statutes that require states to deeply. Though not in this case what ever. Would prevent the federal government from passing a law that legalized is on maintain the illegality of Merrill. However if this case is decide in paper teacher but he. It would com what difficult for the federal ultimate app but it law that would other required. To pass laws that legalize marijuana. Or required states to take affirmative action to prevent it in their state. Bob and be out the bad. Professor thank you I'll be come back and join us we've enjoyed it and albeit a great holiday season. Thank you very much they make their mark gentlemen professor of law does a Clinton school of business Peru colleagues. CUN mine and adjunct professor of law at Fordham. Procedures Fordham college.
READ MOREREAD LESS