Supreme Court Betting on College Sports

In a baby step back toward protecting reserved State Powers, the Supreme Court on Monday overturned a twenty-five year old federal law called The Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (PASPA).  The Act was originally signed into law in 1992 to target organized markets for sports gambling.  This federal law was not a flat ban on sports-gambling schemes, but only a law that prohibited States from permitting sports gambling by State law.

Details

Was Marbury v. Madison Good for American Government?

Take any American history or political science course and you are certain to talk about the landmark Supreme Court case of Marbury v. Madison. I could probably also surmise that you will be told this is precisely the role the Constitution gave the judicial branch.

That, of course, would be wrong, but this would be one of many events the modern American educational system muffs on a regular basis.

Details

Sports Betting Case Before SCOTUS has Tenth Amendment Ramifications

Last week, the Supreme Court heard testimony on a case that could reinvigorate the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution. Surprisingly, it’s all about football and sports betting in the State of New Jersey. The results of Governor of New Jersey v. National Collegiate Athletic Association may have consequences for a range of issues, including gun control, medical/recreational marijuana, and healthcare.

Details

Jesner v. Arab Bank and the Original Meaning of the Alien Tort Statute

Today the Supreme Court hears argument in Jesner v. Arab Bank, in which plaintiffs seek to use the so-called Alien Tort Statute (ATS) as the basis to impose liability on Arab Bank, a Jordanian entity, for allegedly giving financial support to Hamas’ terrorist operations in Israel and the Palestinian territories.  The ATS provides federal court jurisdiction over “any civil action by an alien for a tort only, committed in violation of the law of nations or a treaty of the United States.”  The question is whether this statute applies to the claim against Arab Bank; I joined an amicus brief, authored by Professor Samuel Estreicher (NYU) on behalf of professors of foreign relations law, saying it does not.

Details

A Bad Supreme Court Term for Originalism?

With the 2017 Supreme Court term underway, it’s time to consider its originalism implications. One might think that originalists would be optimistic with Justice Gorsuch — apparently a strong textualist originalist — joining the Court.  But I suspect that, at least on the headline cases, it will be a bad term for originalism, based on the leading case the Court will consider.

Details