Podcasts about amateur sports protection act

Our analysts Michael Cyprys and Stephen Grambling discuss prediction markets' rising popularity and how they could disrupt the U.S. sports betting industry.----- Transcript -----Michael Cyprys: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Cyprys, Morgan Stanley's head of U.S. Brokers, Asset Managers, and Exchanges Research.Stephen Grambling: And I'm Stephen Grambling, head of U.S. Gaming, Lodging, and Leisure.Michael Cyprys: Today, we'll talk about sports betting and how prediction markets can disrupt it.It's Wednesday, March 19th at 10 am in New York.Sports betting used to be against the law in most of America, outside of Nevada. That changed in 2018, when the U.S. Supreme Court declared a federal ban on sports betting to be unconstitutional. As a result, many American states legalized sports betting. Over the last seven years, it's become even more popular and profitable. The American sports betting industry posted a record [$]13.7 billion of revenues last year. That's up from 2023's record of [$]11 billion, according to the American Gaming Association.Now, prediction markets are set to potentially disrupt this industry.Stephen, to set the stage, how is the U.S. sports betting industry currently organized and regulated?Stephen Grambling: Well, as you mentioned, Mike, with the overturning of the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act in 2018, legalization of sports betting turned to the states. The path to legislation varies by state with different constituents to consider – beyond even the local government. You know, Senate and Congress, but also tribal casinos, commercial casinos, sports teams, leagues, etc.We now have 38 states plus D.C. and Puerto Rico offering legal sports betting in some format, collecting billions of dollars in taxes in aggregate. At this point, the big states that are remaining are really only Texas, Florida, Georgia, and California. Each state forms its own framework across taxes, what sports can or can't bet on, and regulations around advertising. This means a separate commission for each state regulates the industry, in conjunction with state lawmakers,Michael Cyprys: I see. And what exactly are betting exchanges and how do they fit within the U.S. sports betting market?Stephen Grambling: Betting exchanges have existed for a long time in markets around the world. These are really exchanges – and are platforms – where individuals can bet directly against each other on an event outcome, rather than against a bookmaker. These exchanges match opposing bets and then take a commission on the winnings and typically offer better odds by eliminating traditional bookmaker margins.That said, the all in commission can range at two to five per cent. Whereas the spread on a traditional singles bet is about five to six per cent. So, it's relatively small. This is also known as the, the vigorish or the vig, or what the book gets to keep. Due to the need to be perfectly balanced as an exchange, these platforms, which operate in various markets, as I said around the world, are generally more akin to premarket, single bets. So single bet, or sometimes people call them straight bets, are really just betting on the outcome of a match or the over-under. They don't typically impact things like multi leg bets, also known as parlays, since there's less of a consistent betting pool.Because the type of bets are more limited than what a sports book offers, these exchanges somewhat plateaued in popularity in markets like the UK. For frame of reference, we estimate these singles bets are about $900 million in markets where it's legal for sports betting, and roughly another $800 million in states without legislation.Again, this is really just the market for people who only bet on that type of bet; that don't do both singles bets and parlays, or parlays alone.Mike, maybe turning it back to you, sports betting is a type of prediction market. But from where you sit, how would you define prediction markets more broadly, and can you give some examples?Michael Cyprys: Sure. So prediction markets are a type of marketplace where event contracts trade. Sometimes they're called forecast markets or even information markets. A core feature here is trading an outcome at an event, such as the November election, economic indicators, or even corporate events. But unlike futures contracts, event contracts have a defined risk and defined reward.Generally, they're structured as binary options, which can be easily understood. For instance, a contract could pay a dollar if the consumer price index, or CPI, exceeds say, 3 per cent in March. If an investor buys that contract for 75 cents, they could generate a 25 percent potential return if CPI comes in over 3 per cent and they collect a dollar on that contract.Now, the counterparty on the other side of that trade is the investor who sold that contract, collected the 75 cents, and they would stand to lose 25 cents potentially – if they held on to that contract, paid out the full dollar in the event that CPI came in hot.What's interesting is the price of that contract becomes the best forecast of that event happening, and so this can provide a lot of information value.Stephen Grambling: So, it sounds like you could bet on just about anything, so are these prediction markets legal?Michael Cyprys: Not only are they legal, they've been around for some time – though perhaps more esoteric in nature, in terms of where we have seen contracts and types of events traded on marketplaces. They've been geared more towards end users and farmers. For example, event contracts on the weather have been listed on a Chicago derivative exchange for over 25 years.What's new and interesting is that we're seeing new exchange upstarts enter the space. They're innovating, they're broadening access to retail investors, and they're benefiting from the confluence of a number of different trends around technology improvements – with mobile trading in recent years, the speed and access to information, the ease of account opening, broadly retail investors coming into the marketplace, and the pure simplicity and intuitive nature of event contracts.The 2024 election sparked people's interest in event contracts. And that's persisting post election. In the coming months, we do expect a large retail brokerage platform in the U.S. to really help potentially mainstream event contracts.Coming back to your legality point and question. One area of open debate, though, is around the legality of sports event contracts, where we expect regulators to provide some clarity around that in the months ahead.Stephen Grambling: Interesting, so some have also argued that the prediction markets are not just the future of trading, but for information in general. Do you think prediction markets can be a disruptive force in finance then?Michael Cyprys: Over time, potentially, yes. I do think that's going to require participation from both retail as well as institutional investors that can help fuel robust and liquid marketplace. The sheer simplicity is helpful in terms of driving retail adoption; but for institutional investors and corporates, they could look to prediction markets as a valuable hedging tool, with insurance-like properties – not to mention the information value that can be derived.Stephen, given our discussion of prediction markets and their relevance for sports betting, how are you framing the potential for risk and opportunity for the sports betting industry from the application of prediction market models?Stephen Grambling: There's a bit of a put and take wherein existing sports betting markets, that's where it's legal, the industry may face new competition. So, the incumbents will face new competition from these prediction markets being opened up. On the other hand, a new regulatory framework could also open up new states; so the states that I referenced before that are still out there that haven't been legalized, all of a sudden become fair game.Given the size of these new states, as I mentioned, folks like California, Texas, Florida; these are enormous economies, and they're roughly equal to the size of the existing markets. So, the potential upside opportunity, we think, actually outweighs the competitive risks. And we quantify this as being potentially in the hundreds of millions of dollars, an incremental EBITDA to some of the incumbents that operate in the space.Michael Cyprys: That's fascinating, Stephen. Thanks for taking the time to talk.Stephen Grambling: Great speaking with you, Mike.Michael Cyprys: And thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.

When Brianne Doura-Schawohl joined the Massachusetts Council on Compulsive Gambling in the fall of 2013, the overturning of the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act in the United States was five years away and amending the Criminal Code of Canada to pave the way for legal single-event sports betting was eight years away. Since then, Doura-Schawohl has gone on to become a leading voice on responsible gambling and problem gambling in senior leadership roles with the National Council on Problem Gambling, and EPIC Risk Management. In her current role as CEO of Doura-Schawohl Consulting LLC, she's working with stakeholders across the regulated gambling industry to address the growing concern around problem gambling. On the latest episode of the Gaming News Canada Show, Doura-Schawohl discussed the impact that the fast-moving mobile/online gambling industry in the U.S. is having on people, the influence of gambling advertising and famous brand ambassadors on players, concerns about increased gambling activity among college students, the need for more research into problem gambling, and the responsibility that stakeholders across the industry have to make gambling safer. Doura-Schawohl, who doesn't shy away from advocating for more tangible action on RG, also provided more than a few words of praise to RG efforts in Ontario and across the rest of Canada by the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario – when creating the province's regulated sports betting and igaming marketplace – the Responsible Gambling Council and BCLC with its GameSense self-exclusion program that is being used by operators in the U.S. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Chris Adams has been a passenger on the fast-moving train of regulated gambling in the U.S. since the repeal of the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act. The founder and CEO of Baltimore-based SharpRank is our guest on the latest episode of the Gaming News Canada Show to talk about his journey from auditor to investment banking, to enrolling in business school, and to hearing the radio commercial that steered him to the sports wagering industry.Adams spoke about the evolution of SharpRank's business since it shared first-prize honours with Parleh Media Group at the SBC First Pitch competition in December 2021. A company which originally focused on the merging of content, influencers and sportsbooks to protect the marketplace, SharpRank has since emerged as a respected voice among legislators and regulators, including the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario.Adams explains the similarities between investing and betting, the blurry lines that can occur when it comes to information being provided to sports bettors, and the challenges operators face in dealing with different legislation and regulation in provinces and states across North America. We also asked him about SharpRanks' plans for the remainder of 2024.If you'd like to be a guest on the podcast, please let us know by emailing steve@gamingnewscanada.ca. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Rob Pizzola and Johnny from betstamp are joined by Twitter OG, Shine the Prof. Professor Shine talks about his start in gambling, fading the public before fading the public was cool, market efficiencies over time, diversifying portfolio's, and much more! Looking to sign up at new sportsbooks? Support Circles Off when you do! www.betstamp.app/circlesoff If you want more content like this, DM us on the Circles Off Twitter account and let us know what to react to next!

http://www.Gabelli.com Invest with Us 1-800-GABELLI (800-422-3554) Research Analyst at Gabelli Funds, Gustavo Pifano, shares an update on the U.S. Sports betting market and one of our best ideas for 2023, Entain plc. Nearly five years on since the US Supreme Court overturned the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act and allowed individual states to regulate and tax sports betting businesses, we now have legal sports betting in 33 states and Washington DC, representing just over 50% of the adult population.

Amy Howe - CEO, FanDuel Renie Anderson - Chief Revenue Officer and Executive Vice President, NFL Partnerships Sharon Otterman - Chief Marketing Officer, Caesars Entertainment Chad Millman (moderator) - Chief Content Officer, The Action Network   There's truly no denying it: sports gambling is big, and it's here to stay. In just three years since the Supreme Court ruling to repeal the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act, legal sports betting has quadrupled in the U.S. with nearly half of all U.S. states now live. In New York alone, the state took in over $1.5 billion in bets in its first 23 days. While the sports betting market booms, sportsbooks are intensely focused on taking a bigger piece of the pie. With this shift, gambling companies have been turning over every rock to capitalize on new customers and expand market share. This race has extended into the development of key partnerships, media property acquisition, forays into new technologies, and more. As this race heats up, this panel brings together industry leaders to discuss the current competition to capitalize on market growth and shape the future of the sports gambling space.

The federal legislation known as The Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act of 1992 (PASPA) outlawed sports betting throughout the United States except in Nevada, Oregon, Delaware and Montana. In 2018, after years of frustration among other states that wanted to legalize sports gambling within their borders, the US Supreme Court overturned PASPA – holding that the PASPA violated the anti-commandeering doctrine of the 10th Amendment. This decision opened the doors for many other states to begin licensing sports gambling operators. Last month, New York became the latest state to legalize online sports gambling – a decision that has been praised by libertarians and sports gambling operators alike, meanwhile criticized by certain other groups. Join the Robert Zicklin Center for Corporate Integrity on Wednesday, February 9, 2022 at 12:30 PM as Baruch College law professor Marc Edelman – our Director of Sports Business Ethics – leads a discussion with Professor Alicia Jessop of Pepperdine University, Professor John Holden of Oklahoma State University, Professor Keith Miller of Drake University and Jim Maney, Executive Director of the New York Council on Problem Gambling, on the law and ethics of legal sports gambling in New York.

John Holden, an assistant professor at the Spears School of Business at Oklahoma State University, joins REGULATED to discuss the new sports betting landscape in the United States. His recent piece for Legal Sports Report reflects on the state of play three years after the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act of 1992 was struck down by the Supreme Court of the United States.Christian Bax used to regulate medical marijuana and Tony Glover used to regulate alcoholic beverages, casino gaming, and tobacco. With the REGULATED podcast, they tackle the most interesting regulatory, research, and investment developments in those industries and more. REGULATED is available through Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, Spotify, and Stitcher.

Hour 3: Mut is joined by Samuel Scarpino, Assistant Professor at the Network Science Institute at Northeastern University to talk about the latest Covid -19 news. Mut ask Samuel if we will have sports back soon and when can we expect fans back in the stands. Mut also asks Samuel if kids will be returning to school in the fall. Two years ago it was one Muts best days when the Supreme Court overturned a ruling on sports betting. While it was a great day it has still been a very slow process in Massachusetts.

In this episode, we discuss PASPA, the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act of 1992, including its carveouts and nationalization issues as well sports leagues' role as enforcers of PASPA.

Sports betting has long been an activity surrounded by legal hurdles within the U.S., but that hasn't stopped the billion dollar industry from taking bets all across the country through Nevada, personal bookies, or offshore betting sites. With the Supreme Court's ruling on May 14, 2018 to legalize sports betting, where does that leave us now? Dustin Gouker, head of Legal Sports Report, joins us on the show to help explain how we got to where we are today (6:48). What made Nevada special throughout these years (11:06), was the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act of 1992 (PASPA) effective at all (13:20), and how did PASPA get taken down (16:03)? Where is sports betting officially legal now (26:36) and what's the difference between legal vs. operational (27:28)? Lastly, when will sports betting come to your state if it hasn't already (30:04)?

On the one-year anniversary of the dynamiting of the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act of 1992, the ICE North America gaming trade show opens in the sprawling Boston Seaport district, drawing influencers from around the globe. Half of the podcast joined them, with Brant James prowling the hallways and interview rooms in search of the hot topics in the legal sports betting industry. In summary: lots of pro sports teams and leagues believe that eSports could be a massive betting market, that is if anyone could ever figure out how to regulate it; you might one day have a multi-tiered game broadcast that allows you as much betting content as you chose; in-play betting remains the focus of major sportsbooks and pro sports leagues for attracting new customers.   Sugar Ray Leonard and Jason Robins Interviews Retired former boxing champion Sugar Ray Leonard offers his thoughts on retirement and what brought him to the trade show. He hugged a lot of folks and had them literally leaping into the air for t-shirts. DraftKings CEO offers his insights into the gaming industry, where his daily fantasy and sports betting platform fits, and where this is all headed.   BADDER BEATS TIME STAMPS 1:43 – Happy PASPA Independence Day 4:17 – State legislatures update. 6:00 – How many states will have legal sports betting in a year? 8: 00 – An important promotional message. 10:01 – Come for the sports betting talk, stay for a hug with Sugar Ray Leonard. 15:00 – Draft Kings CEO Jason Robins. 22:05 – eSports was a hot topic 22:35 – Will you have a three-tiered gambling-only channel for your sports in the future? There were clues. 24:05 – The National Football League’s heir apparent said they might have underestimated the size of the black market. 25:00 – Ryan takes umbrage. 25:43 – Brant restores order. 27:40 – Analyzing the possibility of a multi-tiered gambling sports contest. 29:15 – Millennials are supposedly a big deal. 30:22 – Ninja was a big deal at ICE North America. 32: 10 – Breaking down the National Basketball Association conference finals. 39:26 – Toronto vs. Milwaukee 39:53 – Brant’s hot take on the Bucks series. He’s no loafer. 42:00 – Are the Golden State Warriors unstoppable? 46:00 – Game of Thrones breakdown. And it has broken down. 48:30 – Who’s going to be on the Iron Throne? 51:20 – Why did Game of Thrones do this to the characters?   Where You Can Find Ep. 27 Of Badder Beats On Social Media On Instagram. On Twitter. Brant James on Twitter. Ryan Butler on Twitter. Sugar Ray Leonard on Twitter. Jason Robins on Twitter.  

It was a personal honor to have as my guest on this episode, Tom McMillen, President and CEO of Lead1 Association. As a kid growing up in Washington, DC, I had two dreams: 1) to play in the NBA and 2) to be President of the United States. I like to think I came a little close, having played basketball in college, worked for a U.S. Congressman and spent time as an NBA agent. At least that's what I tell myself. Having those dreams, and living in DC, Tom was someone I followed closely. Tom was an All-American at the University of Maryland, where he also became the school's first Rhodes Scholar. I got to watch his 11 year NBA career, especially his three seasons with the then Washington Bullets. I also followed closely Tom's three terms in the U.S. House of Representatives, where he represented the 4th District of Maryland. Tom's career journey was what I aspired for myself as a young man. Today, Tom McMillen is President and CEO of Lead1 Association. Lead1 is a membership organization of collegiate athletic directors from primarily Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS) programs. As the business of college sports has grown, so have the challenges facing institutions, programs and athletic directors - diversity, new media, sexual assault and domestic violence, and gambling are just a few. With his background in legislation, being a student-athlete, playing professionally and experience leading public companies, college athletics is fortunate to have Tom as a leader. In this episode, Tom and I discuss: How he, as a young man, followed the career of Bill Bradley, a former U.S. Senator, basketball All-American at Princeton and 10 years in the NBA. The impact attending college and playing professional basketball in the Washington, DC area had on his political aspirations. What leadership means to him. As a member of Congress, Tom's role in the original sports gambling legislation - Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act of 1992. Concerns of new legalized sports betting. What it was like when the news of the FBI college basketball investigation and arrests broke in the middle of their annual conference of more than 100 athletic directors in attendance and NCAA president Mark Emmert speaking at the same time. Concerns of legalized sports betting. College basketball "guarantee games" - the affect they have on career advancement of low and mid-major coaches. The importance of college coaches having an understanding of the issues and challenges AD's face - changing media landscape, declining game attendance, financial and budget pressures, hiring and retaining the right coaches, federal investigations. Gender and ethnic diversity in coaching and sports administration. The annual Lead1 Institute. Mentions in this episode 19th Annual Lead1 Institute - July 16-18, 2018 at Texas Christian University, Fort Worth, Texas Connect With Tom McMillen and Lead1 Lead1 Association - Website Lead1 Association- Twitter Tom McMillen - Twitter Connect with Odell McCants McCantsSports.com - Website @odellmccants - Twitter Odell McCants - LinkedIn

On May 14, 2018, the Supreme Court decided Murphy v. NCAA, a case involving a conflict between state-authorized sports gambling and a federal statute: the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act of 1992 (PASPA). PASPA prohibits state-sanctioned gambling with respect to amateur and professional sporting events. Among other things, the statute allows sports leagues whose events are the subject of betting schemes to bring an action to enjoin any gambling. PASPA did except certain states from its prohibitions, including New Jersey--but only if New Jersey established its sports gambling scheme within one year of PASPA’s enactment. New Jersey did not do so, and in fact prohibited sports gambling until a 2011 referendum amended the state constitution to allow it.Thereafter, New Jersey enacted the 2012 Sports Wagering Act, which created a government-regulated sports betting scheme. Invoking PASPA, five sports leagues sued to enjoin the 2012 law. New Jersey countered that PASPA was unconstitutional under the federal anti-commandeering doctrine. The District Court deemed PASPA constitutional and enjoined implementation of the wagering law. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed, and the U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari. In 2014, New Jersey enacted a new gambling law which repealed certain restrictions on “the placements and acceptance of wagers” on sporting events so long as those events did not involve New Jersey collegiate teams (or other in-state collegiate sporting events). New Jersey contended that this law was admissible under PASPA because it did not actively authorize sports-betting. Once again sports leagues sued to enjoin the law as a violation of PASPA, and prevailed in federal district court. The Third Circuit, sitting en banc, again affirmed, holding that PASPA did not commandeer New Jersey in a way that ran afoul of the federal Constitution. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to address whether a federal statute that prohibits modification or repeal of state-law prohibitions on private conduct impermissibly commandeers the regulatory power of the states. By a vote of 6-3, the Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Third Circuit. In an opinion delivered by Justice Alito, the Court held that the provisions of PAPSA that prohibit state authorization and licensing of sports gambling schemes violate the Constitution’s anticommandeering rule, and cannot be severed from the remainder of the statute, which collapses as a result.Justice Alito’s majority opinion was joined by the Chief Justice and Justices Kennedy, Thomas, Kagan, and Gorsuch. Justice Breyer joined to all except as to Part VI-B. Justice Thomas filed a concurring opinion. Justice Breyer filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part. Justice Ginsburg filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Sotomayor joined, and in which Justice Breyer joined in part. To discuss the case, we have Elbert Lin, Partner at Hunton & Williams, LLP.

On May 14, 2018, the Supreme Court decided Murphy v. NCAA, a case involving a conflict between state-authorized sports gambling and a federal statute: the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act of 1992 (PASPA). PASPA prohibits state-sanctioned gambling with respect to amateur and professional sporting events. Among other things, the statute allows sports leagues whose events are the subject of betting schemes to bring an action to enjoin any gambling. PASPA did except certain states from its prohibitions, including New Jersey--but only if New Jersey established its sports gambling scheme within one year of PASPA’s enactment. New Jersey did not do so, and in fact prohibited sports gambling until a 2011 referendum amended the state constitution to allow it.Thereafter, New Jersey enacted the 2012 Sports Wagering Act, which created a government-regulated sports betting scheme. Invoking PASPA, five sports leagues sued to enjoin the 2012 law. New Jersey countered that PASPA was unconstitutional under the federal anti-commandeering doctrine. The District Court deemed PASPA constitutional and enjoined implementation of the wagering law. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed, and the U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari. In 2014, New Jersey enacted a new gambling law which repealed certain restrictions on “the placements and acceptance of wagers” on sporting events so long as those events did not involve New Jersey collegiate teams (or other in-state collegiate sporting events). New Jersey contended that this law was admissible under PASPA because it did not actively authorize sports-betting. Once again sports leagues sued to enjoin the law as a violation of PASPA, and prevailed in federal district court. The Third Circuit, sitting en banc, again affirmed, holding that PASPA did not commandeer New Jersey in a way that ran afoul of the federal Constitution. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to address whether a federal statute that prohibits modification or repeal of state-law prohibitions on private conduct impermissibly commandeers the regulatory power of the states. By a vote of 6-3, the Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Third Circuit. In an opinion delivered by Justice Alito, the Court held that the provisions of PAPSA that prohibit state authorization and licensing of sports gambling schemes violate the Constitution’s anticommandeering rule, and cannot be severed from the remainder of the statute, which collapses as a result.Justice Alito’s majority opinion was joined by the Chief Justice and Justices Kennedy, Thomas, Kagan, and Gorsuch. Justice Breyer joined to all except as to Part VI-B. Justice Thomas filed a concurring opinion. Justice Breyer filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part. Justice Ginsburg filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Sotomayor joined, and in which Justice Breyer joined in part. To discuss the case, we have Elbert Lin, Partner at Hunton & Williams, LLP.

Recently, when the U.S. Supreme Court declared the federal ban on sports betting unconstitutional and repealed the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act, it opened the floodgates for any state to legalize sports betting.  On the heels of this decision, America Trends got busy in finding out what this might suggest for the future for … Continue reading EP 137 America Turns Into One Big Casino

The Court’s mid-May decision in Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Association got substantial news coverage because of the outcome.  A six-justice majority in Murphy invalidated the 1990’s Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act, which had prevented state and local governments from operating sports-betting schemes or authorizing private casinos and individuals to do so. No wonder, […]

On Monday, May 14, 2018, the Supreme Court decision came down in Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, No. 16-476, and New Jersey Thoroughbred Horsemen’s Association, Inc. v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, No. 16-477, its first anti-commandeering cases in years. As explained and affirmed by the Court in New York v. United States and Printz v. United States, under the anti-commandeering principle, Congress lacks the power to regulate state governments’ regulation. At issue is whether a federal law—the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act of 1992 (PASPA)—may constitutionally bar the State of New Jersey from repealing existing state law that prohibits sports wagering to the extent the law applies at casinos and racetracks. Petitioners contended that PASPA is an unconstitutional attempt by Congress to dictate state law. Respondents argued that PASPA does not bar New Jersey from repealing existing law but merely preempts the State from affirmatively authorizing sports wagering. They contended that the alleged “repeal” is in reality an attempt by New Jersey to selectively authorize sports wagering, which is lawfully preempted by PASPA. The 6-3 decision, with Justice Alito writing for the majority, and its implications are discussed by our expert, Mr. Elbert Lin.Featuring:Mr. Elbert Lin, Partner, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.

On Monday, May 14, 2018, the Supreme Court decision came down in Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, No. 16-476, and New Jersey Thoroughbred Horsemen’s Association, Inc. v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, No. 16-477, its first anti-commandeering cases in years. As explained and affirmed by the Court in New York v. United States and Printz v. United States, under the anti-commandeering principle, Congress lacks the power to regulate state governments’ regulation. At issue is whether a federal law—the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act of 1992 (PASPA)—may constitutionally bar the State of New Jersey from repealing existing state law that prohibits sports wagering to the extent the law applies at casinos and racetracks. Petitioners contended that PASPA is an unconstitutional attempt by Congress to dictate state law. Respondents argued that PASPA does not bar New Jersey from repealing existing law but merely preempts the State from affirmatively authorizing sports wagering. They contended that the alleged “repeal” is in reality an attempt by New Jersey to selectively authorize sports wagering, which is lawfully preempted by PASPA. The 6-3 decision, with Justice Alito writing for the majority, and its implications are discussed by our expert, Mr. Elbert Lin.Featuring:Mr. Elbert Lin, Partner, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.

Today's episode takes a deep dive into two important Supreme Court opinions decided last week:  McCoy v. Louisiana, which prohibits attorneys from conceding their client's guilt over that client's objections in a capital murder trial, and  Murphy v. NCAA, which struck down the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (PASPA), 28 U.S. Code § 3701 et seq.  In both cases, we hope to show that these cases have two legitimate sides. We begin, of course, with sportsball.  What is PASPA, why did the Court strike it down, does it make sense, and most importantly:  when can you bet against the San Jose Sharks? In the main segment, we break down the difficult questions surrounding the representation of capital murder defendants. After that, we head back overseas with a really insightful listener comment that takes us deeper into the law of treaties. Finally, we end with the answer to Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #76 about present recollection refreshed.  Remember to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! Recent Appearances None!  If you'd like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at openarguments@gmail.com. Show Notes & Links  The first case we break down is  Murphy v. NCAA, which struck down the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act, 28 U.S. Code § 3701 et seq. After that, we turn to McCoy v. Louisiana, which prohibits attorneys from conceding their client's guilt over that client's objections in a capital murder trial, distinguishing the Court's earlier decision in Florida v. Nixon, 543 U.S. 175 (2004). We discussed treaty obligations in Episode 173. Support us on Patreon at:  patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ Don't forget the OA Facebook Community! And email us at openarguments@gmail.com  

I've got a fever, and the only prescription, is more conference championships! Swany and Nolan discuss North Dakota State's continued domination of the Summit League last week as the Bison notched three more conference titles in softball, men's track & field, and women's track & field. Along with the men & women's golf teams bringing home hardware, it gives NDSU a fiver of Summit League titles this spring. There's more big news on the football front with the Bison beginning the process to build an on-campus, state-of-the-art indoor practice facility and how key supporters have delivered the funding to support athletics. Finally, the guys dive into the United States Supreme Court's decision in Murphy v. NCAA, which struck down the Amateur Sports Protection Act, opening the way for state sports gaming. Is that a good or bad thing for college athletics? The guys take may surprise you. Keep up with the Herd, this week, on the Bison Illustrated Podcast!

Tonight I get into the ramifications of the Supreme Court ruling in favor of the state of New Jersey for sports gambling and in turn striking down the provisions of the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act of 1992. What does this mean for the individual sports leagues and consumers as a whole? I do not have answers for everything but the way in which you access sports may very well change in the near future. Cam also joins me for discussion on this ruling and its potential impact on sports in the US as a whole.

Further cementing what has come to be known as the "anti commandeering doctrine," the Supreme Court ruled that: "Provisions of the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act that prohibit state authorization and licensing of sports gambling schemes violate the Constitution[.]" Although SCOTUS is no friend to liberty, and cannot be counted on to limit federal power, this decision is a win for state's rights. DonorSee: Nancy Kiden's Project Was Fully Funded! Email me if you donated! patrick.macfarlane@libertyweekly.net Help Jessie Schwartz start a women's shelter in Uganda! Remember to comment in DonorSee if you contribute and I will give you a shout-out! Episode 74 of the Liberty Weekly Podcast is Brought to you by: The Liberty Weekly Amazon Affiliate Link The Liberty Weekly Patreon Page: help support the show and gain access to tons of bonus content! Become a patron today! Become a Patron!   Our Nord VPN Affiliate Link Our Liberty Classroom Affiliate Link Show Notes: SCOTUS Blog Docket for Murphy v. NCAA Amy Howe: Opinion Analysis for Murphy v. NCAA (SCOTUS Blog) Mike Maharrey: Supreme Court’s Sports Gambling Opinion is a Rare and Major Win for the Tenth Amendment Murphy v. NCAA Supreme Court Opinion Erwin Chemerinsky: Constitutional Law Principles and Policies (Student Treatise) (Amazon Affiliate Link)

Brownstein Shareholders Ellen Whittemore and Will Moschella join American Gaming Association client Chris Cylke to discuss the Supreme Court's oral arguments on Christie v. NCAA and what happens next with respect to the constitutionality of the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act of 1992, which prohibits sports betting outside of Nevada and a handful of more regulated states.

On Monday, December 4, 2017, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in Christie v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, No. 16-476, and New Jersey Thoroughbred Horsemen’s Association, Inc. v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, No. 16-477, its first anti-commandeering cases in years. As explained and affirmed by the Court in New York v. United States and Printz v. United States, under the anti-commandeering principle, Congress lacks the power to regulate state governments’ regulation. At issue on Monday is whether a federal law—the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act of 1992 (PASPA)—may constitutionally bar the State of New Jersey from repealing existing state law that prohibits sports wagering to the extent the law applies at casinos and racetracks. Petitioners contend that PASPA is an unconstitutional attempt by Congress to dictate state law. Respondents argue that PASPA does not bar New Jersey from repealing existing law but merely preempts the State from affirmatively authorizing sports wagering. They contend that the alleged “repeal” is in reality an attempt by New Jersey to selectively authorize sports wagering, which is lawfully preempted by PASPA. The decision in these cases could have broad implications for the line between impermissible commandeering and permissible preemption.Featuring:Mr. Elbert Lin, Partner, Hunton & Williams LLP Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.

On Monday, December 4, 2017, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in Christie v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, No. 16-476, and New Jersey Thoroughbred Horsemen’s Association, Inc. v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, No. 16-477, its first anti-commandeering cases in years. As explained and affirmed by the Court in New York v. United States and Printz v. United States, under the anti-commandeering principle, Congress lacks the power to regulate state governments’ regulation. At issue on Monday is whether a federal law—the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act of 1992 (PASPA)—may constitutionally bar the State of New Jersey from repealing existing state law that prohibits sports wagering to the extent the law applies at casinos and racetracks. Petitioners contend that PASPA is an unconstitutional attempt by Congress to dictate state law. Respondents argue that PASPA does not bar New Jersey from repealing existing law but merely preempts the State from affirmatively authorizing sports wagering. They contend that the alleged “repeal” is in reality an attempt by New Jersey to selectively authorize sports wagering, which is lawfully preempted by PASPA. The decision in these cases could have broad implications for the line between impermissible commandeering and permissible preemption.Featuring:Mr. Elbert Lin, Partner, Hunton & Williams LLP Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.

Lost in the shuffle of big headlines at the end the Supreme Court Term was the decision to take on New Jersey's challenge to PASPA, the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act, otherwise known as the "why you can only bet on sports in Nevada law." But as guest Steve Silver of The Legal Blitz explains, this is a potentially huge state's rights case directly linked to the Shelby County voting rights opinion.