Is the Supreme Court Gambling on State Cannabis Laws? Christie v. NCAA

Is the Supreme Court Gambling on State Cannabis Laws? Christie v. NCAA
We are hoping for a good roll from the Christie case

Christie v. NCAAis a U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) challenge to the federal law that bans states from allowing sports gambling. Though nothing inChristieaddresses cannabis directly, SCOTUSs decision, due out next year, couldgive Congress a tool to ban states from allowing legalmarijuana.

In 1992, Congress passed the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (PASPA), which prohibits states (save for some that were grandfathered) to authorize gambling on sports. The state of New Jersey, which was not grandfathered, passed laws in 2012 to authorize sports betting. In a federal case,the state admitted that these laws violated PASPA, but argued that PASPA unconstitutionally allowed the federal government to commandeer the state to enforce federal law. The Court of Appeals found that the Constitutions anti-commandeering doctrine (derived from the 10th Amendment) didnt apply here because PASPA didnt affirmatively require New Jersey to do anything, but simply prohibitedit from enacting laws that allowed betting on sports. The Supreme Courtdeclinedto reviewthe Court of Appealsdecision.

In2014, New Jersey passed a new law thatmerely repealed existingitslaws prohibiting sports betting. The Court of Appeals was unconvinced that the new law was any different than the 2012 law. According to the Court of Appeals, the difference between authorizing sports gambling and repealing laws that prohibited sports gambling was insignificant. The result in either case was that New Jersey allowed gamblers in New Jerseyto bet on sports, which was banned by PASPA.

This time SCOTUS took notice and agreed to hear the case. New Jerseys brief before SCOTUS argues that under the anti-commandeering doctrine, it makes no difference whether the federal law prevents a state from repealing a law or affirmatively forces it to pass a new law. Either way, the federal government is forcing New Jersey to regulate conduct that its voters would rather leave unregulated. At least one amicus curiae brief argued that upholding the lower courts decision would allow Congress to require states to affirmatively ...

Read More