The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
What Was The Most Consequential Supreme Court Decision Over The Past Five Years?
No, it was not Dobbs or Bruen.
For the past few years, I have watched with some apprehension the explosion of legalized gambling in the United States. Casinos have sprouted up in places that did not previously allow gambling. And online sports gambling has proliferated, such that almost every commercial break during the Super Bowl plugged a betting app. Much of this shift can be traced back to a single Supreme Court decision: Murphy v. NCAA (2018). At the time, I thought this federalism case was not a difficult call: Congress cannot prohibit a state from legalizing sports betting. The vote was 7-2. Justice Ginsburg dissented on fairly narrow grounds concerning severability. The consequences, however, extended far beyond the Garden State.
Charles Lane's column in the Washington Post summed up my thinking:
A few months ago, I was on a flight to Las Vegas for a talk at UNLV. The person sitting next to me worked for the marketing department of one of the large casino conglomerates. He made no effort to conceal what was on his screen, and I availed myself of the opportunity to read his presentation. (Never do any work on a plane unless you are willing to have other people see it.) The casino was trying to calculate the correct level of "enticement" needed to hook a person on the app. In other words, how many free "credits" would a person receive before he became a "loyal" member. I'm sure similar conversations were held back in the day at tobacco companies. At least in the past, people had to make a physical trip to a casino. Now, super-addictive apps can hook a person, and deplete his bank account anywhere. Lives will be ruined with a few swipes.
I think the societal effects of Murphy will dwarf the impact of Dobbs and Bruen. Without question the number of abortions has decreased, but not nearly as much as some advocates feared. And, on balance, I suspect that gun laws nationwide will not look much different in 5 years than they do now. But Murphy, a single decision led to a complete shift in the American economy. Don't tell Justice Gorsuch, but Indian tribes, which have come to rely on exclusive gaming facilities, may be the hardest hit. Plus, throw in Justice Kavanaugh's concurrence in NCAA v. Alston, and college athletics have been turned upside down by name-image-likeness deals. It's often the decisions that fly under the radar that are the most consequential.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Gambling creates no profits, no opportunities for investment, creates no goods or services. Every dollar gambled away is sucked out of the economy, never to return. I wonder what the Law & Economics folks think about it.
How is gambling different from, say, movies or television or spectator sports in this respect? After all, if I go to see a movie, or watch an episode of "Game of Thrones", or go to a football game, I've squandered time that I could've spent on productive work, and gained nothing from it.
And how, exactly, is money lost in gambling "sucked out of the economy, never to return"? How does it differ in that respect from money spent on any other form of entertainment?
The entertainment value of gambling is often overlooked in analyses. Many years ago I was interviewed for a BBC radio programme on maths and finance and the subject of the national lottery came up. I observed that despite everyone "knowing" that it was irrational to play the lottery, because - for sake of example - suppose, given the odds of winning, your rational bet would be 60p, not the £1 a ticket actually cost, who's to say that the 40p difference does not represent entertainment value? We don't regard it as irrational to buy a cinema ticket, etc. etc.
Indeed. I've eavesdropped on a few people buying lottery tickets, and none of them seem to regard it as a means of financial planning. Rather, they enjoy fantasizing about what they'd do if they were rich, and the lottery ticket gives them a hook on which to hang their fantasies.
Precisely. I occasionally buy a lottery ticket, it is NOT because I think I'm going to win. I just have a bit of trouble fantasizing about what I'd do with a ridiculous amount of money if I haven't made a token effort to create a nominal chance of it happening.
The daydreams are worth a few bucks.
I agree with all that, but I would say that some people do seem to play the lottery for the money return. Not the massive jackpots like MegaMillions/Powerball, but the scratchers or the daily Pick 3s and such.
A great deal of investment, labor and services goes into making a movie. Gambling doesn’t require any of that. Maybe you buy the wheel to spin. After that it’s just spin and spin.
Another way of putting this would be to say that gambling is a much more efficient way of producing a unit of entertainment than moviemaking.
I should add that this sucked out of the economy forever thing displays a weak grasp of arithmetic never mind economics. What do you think happens to the profits ?
I’m quoting Paul Samuelson, who called gambling a “sterile transfer of wealth without the creation of money or goods”. You can look it up.
Why do you think quoting a self-described neo-Keynsian helps your case? Other than the broad proposition that 'mathematics is the proper language of economics', he was wrong about just about everything.
Who do you think was wrong, Keynes, or Samuelson?
(Hint: it's a trick question. Neither one was "wrong about just about everything.")
Yes, what DOES happen to the profits? Do they stay in the community where the gamblers play?
A few decades ago, now, Iowa wanted to license riverboat gambling on the Mississippi as a tourist draw. Illinois naturally wanted some of that action and licensed gambling boats as well. Originally, the boats were supposed to cruise upstream and down; then, they were allowed to host gamblers while more or less permanently docked; now land-based casinos exist in both Illinois and Iowa. During all that, higher-end restaurants in communities along the river and both states have gone out of business not to be replaced. Similarly, horse racing has in Illinois has declined as various other forms of gambling have proliferated. So, yeah, maybe there is some entertainment value in all forms of gambling, but some forms result in fewer of those profits staying in local communities.
If keeping profits in the local community is critical, then shouldn't we applaud the closing of small-town movie houses? I rather suspect that most of the money spent on movie tickets winds up in places like Hollywood, with only a very modest fraction remaining in the town where the theater's located. Close the movie houses and cut off cable television, video streaming, and other such money sucks, and people in small towns will be forced to make their own local entertainment, the proceeds of which will mostly stay in the local community.
You might prefer "Game of Thrones" or the latest Star Wars flick to the local high-school play; but it's a small sacrifice to make in order to keep your community viable...
And where do you think the profits from the local Walmart, Costco, Best Buy, etc. go?
A great deal of investment, labor and services goes into making: the software or hardware required for gambling; the underlying activity being gambled on; the people who develop the advertising; the people who develop the graphics; the casinos; the services the casinos employ; the transportation services that bring people to casinos and cities with casinos... the list goes on forever.
You’re talking about the visible encrustations. What is invisible is the amount of wealth being sucked out.
No wealth gets sucked out. They aren't burning the cash they are paid. It goes into other parts of the economy.
It’s not even that as much as a known past history of corruption. let us not forget the 1919 Black Sox scandal. https://www.history.com/news/black-sox-baseball-scandal-1919-world-series-chicago
I was at UMass in the era of Marcus Camby and Coach Cal’s Criminals and a lot of that never came out. And what really scares me is gambling on the college kids — pro sports is one thing but when you get into purported students, the system corrupts academia already and this will just badly exacerbate that.
Bring in the big money and information will come out that shouldn’t — eg. the athletes grades and mental health info could easily be purchased. It would even be legal to tell Brian the Bookmaker that an athlete had broken up with a boyfriend/girlfriend, something everyone in the dorm would know, and Brian gets for $50.
This will not end well.
Is Prof. Blackman looking for more govt regulation?!?
Not very libertarian. . . .
This is why "addictive" is such a popular word among those who'd like to restrict our liberties. The idea is that addiction takes away our freedom to decline to further consume marijuana or pornography or gambling; so by forbidding us from engaging in these addictive pursuits, they're giving us greater freedom in the long term.
Unfortunately, the definition of "addictive" has been stretched far beyond its original meaning, as applied to things like alcohol or opiates that produce tolerance, genuine physical dependence, and real withdrawal symptoms. If I stay up later than I should playing video games, or if I have trouble walking past the potato-chip display in a convenience store, then I must be addicted.
Further, even if you find yourself compelled into self-destructive acts of excess in some tegard why should I be barred the occasional indulgence?
Given the breadth of what is considered addictive today, if the control freaks were honest and consistent about banning it all humanity would be extinct within a generation and miserable every moment until then.
Wow. This post really sums up Blackman pretty well: an unserious, ill-informed, contrarian asshole.
I mean of course he thinks the impact of Dobbs will be dwarfed by people gambling: he's never going to be wondering if he is close enough to death to have the non-viable pregnancy terminated. He's never going to have to personally think about whether a rape victim is young enough to qualify for a health exception. He's not going to have to reconsider his entire reproductive future.
And he's not going to be wondering if his marriage or ability to have private consensual relations will disappear in a few years as Thomas suggested they should.
None of this effects HIM. So naturally he thinks it doesn't effect society.
Also: WTF is this line:
" Don't tell Justice Gorsuch, but Indian tribes, which have come to rely on exclusive gaming facilities, may be the hardest hit."
"HAHAAHAHA that minority group whose rights Justice Gorsuch occasionally looks out for because the US has continually reneged on its obligations to them are being hurt by a decision he also joined. HUR DUR I'M HILARIOUS FOR POINTING THIS OUT."
Christ. What an asshole.
"he’s never going to be wondering if he is close enough to death to have the non-viable pregnancy terminated."
Outside of the PR fantasies of pro-abortion activists, nobody is, in this country.
You think all these women and their doctors sharing their stories on the record are lying? How would you know? Have you been part of their care teams? Are you in their family? Their friends? Or are you just making stuff up because you are a lying asshole with an overinflated sense of confidence about the world?
https://wearethemeteor.com/texas-abortion-ban-stopped-doctors-helping-woman-miscarrying/
FUCK YOU
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2022/11/15/1135882310/miscarriage-hemorrhage-abortion-law-ohio
FUCK YOU
https://tennesseelookout.com/2023/02/13/lines-drawn-for-renewed-abortion-fight/
GO FUCK YOURSELF
Sounds like you were personally close to such a situation.
Nope. Not at all. It just makes me angry as a human being who cares about other people that their government would inflict such suffering on them.
And that the people who wanted these laws feel compelled to lie about the obvious results everyone had warned about.
But the funny thing about the liars is that their lies are often undercut by the extremists who openly advocate for the negative consequences. Like with the Tennessee story, the right to life group actually openly advocating for doctors to wait around: “I think that’s difficult if a mother’s hemorrhaging, to be objective.”
Josh Blackman seems to be the future of American conservativism.
Thank goodness.
Springsteen tickets (for the second leg of the tour) will be available tomorrow morning (or thereabouts). But save some money for Stones tickets — tomorrow’s tour announcement has been delayed but the Stones will perform across the United States and Canada later this year.
The important part of the decision was not permission for New Jersey to pass laws. The important part was the "wrecking ball" (Ginsburg, dissenting) that took down the federal law. The court could have left gambling like marijuana is today – illegal under federal law, legal under state law. I am in general agreement with Thomas' concurrence. If one is to stike down federal regulation of sports betting, do it on constitutional grounds after proper briefing.
Leaving the situation "like marijuana is today" is about the worst possible answer I can think of. It's stupid, inefficient, legally questionable and inherently unjust. If something is so dangerous that the feds must step in, then federal preemption applies and state laws don't matter. If it's not that dangerous, then the feds have to business making that particular law in the first place and should leave it to the states.
That, by the way, is what the federal solution to marijuana should be - the states are perfectly capable of sorting it out and the federal laws are overreach that should be simply invalidated.
This post is ridiculous. Sports betting was pervasive prior to any judicial decision regarding the legality thereof.
The reasoning of Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health, OTOH, presages a wholesale assault upon every substantive due process right. Clarence Thomas's concurrence, expressly calling for Griswold v. Connecticut, Lawrence v. Texas and Obergefell v. Hodges to be revisited, merely said the quiet part out loud.
Most "substantive due process" rights could be properly grounded in the P&I clause, with no impact on citizens. What was fatal to Roe wasn't being imposed through the due process clause, it was that the Court had pulled the right out of their nether orifice.
Most “substantive due process” rights could be properly grounded in the P&I clause, with no impact on citizens.
And who cares about non-citizens, anyway. Right, Brett?
In practice, all it did was move sports betting from off-shore (and/or tribal?) casinos to domestic casinos.
Fun fact: my former state’s (democrat) AG sued some off-shore casinos back in the late 90’s or early-00's. For years, I was banned from using those casinos’ websites by virtue of my state-level citizenship/domicile (i.e., regardless of where in the US I was at that moment).
With bewildering speed, a language once intelligible only to Las Vegas habitues — "parlay," "over-under" — has gone mainstream.
Like others I think this post is just silly. People have been gambling on sports forever, and the terms mentioned by Lane were always widely understood.
How many times have you heard or read someone say "I'll take the over," or "that's quite a parlay," when referring to something or other having nothing to do with sports gambling?
Wow you are bitter.
If gambling is such a problem, then lobby your state government to fix it. This is not a proper role or problem for the federal government to address. And that's all Murphy said.
States look at it as tax revenue lost to other states.
I do NOT like college kids involved.
re: "States look at it as tax revenue lost to other states."
Yeah, and? States compete on lots of dimensions. That doesn't make it a proper problem for the feds.
I do NOT like college kids involved.
I don't either, and I think universities that take money from the gambling companies to encourage their students to bet are doing something pretty slimy.
But that's an issue for university governance (with maybe a bit of input from parents).
Murphy, of course, did not say that the Feds couldn't ban gambling; the court in no way held that it wasn't a proper role or problem for the federal government to address. All the Court said was that the federal government couldn't force the states to do it.
You could have been looking at the launch campaign for a pasta company and it would be much the same. What kind of graphics do we need to attract eyeballs, where should our campaign be placed to teach a receptive audience, how much do we need to give away/discount to create or maintain customers. All of that is normal, you just looked at the internal marketing pitch where it all is sold as grander and more permanent rhan reality to generate executive buy-in.
I find the talk about the "integrity" of sports laughable. As if it ever served any other purpose other than gambling.
Higher Education is supposed to....
...develop character.
I think that future historians will consider the “Students for Fair Admissions” decisions to be the most significant of the decade, and for three reasons — assuming that there is at least a 5-4 vote to drive a stake through the heart of Affirmative Retribution.
First, there is going to be a level of rioting on college campi that we haven’t seen since Kent State. The left is going to go completely insane over this, and semesters will end early, much as they did in 1970.
Second, Lower-Middle Class White parents don’t realize the extent to which their children, particularly their sons, are currently being screwed — and won’t tolerate it when they do.
And third, like Brown v Board, the implications of this will go WAY beyond admissions. All of the games currently being played will have to end as well. All the race-based scholarships, all the special programs.
Yep, my place of work is currently try to implement a process where DEI employees make all hiring decisions for Pele with under ten years of work experience. The whole plan would implode if they were told by the Supreme Court they aren't allowed to discriminate on the basis of race anymore.
Which is worse: Dr Ed's take on what happened at Kent State, or his loony prediction about the reaction, or his misunderstanding of what the ruling would and would not allow?
Kent State is in Ohio. Colleges nationwide closed as a result.
Tune in next time for Prof. Blackman's explanation that the Partition of India is the overlooked "most consequential outcome" of World War II.
When did he start writing for Buzzfeed?
It is really bad. Young men everywhere are getting sucked into gambling in a bad way, and many have a hard time managing it. Physical casinos have also always left a great deal of destruction in their wake.
This doesn’t mean the right answer is to ban it, particularly through the federal government that probably does not have a legitimate constitutional power to do so (and I realize that Murphy only applied anticommandeering doctrine). But it’s an ominous cultural omen.
I don’t doubt this will incentivize corruption in the sports industry as well.