Britain’s $18.4 billion-a-year betting industry is plagued by gambling addictions. Recent articles by NBC, the New York Times, and the Washington Post claim this could be “a glimpse into America’s future” after the recent Supreme Court case, Murphy v. NCAA, allowed states to regulate their own sports gambling industries.
NBC quoted Britain’s Gambling Commission regulator as saying, “… the number of problem gamblers had risen by about one-third, to 430,000 people, in just three years.”
In England, all gambling, including sports, is regulated by the Gambling Commission. But this isn’t 1700 and we aren’t under English rule. The victory in Murphy reignites the Tenth Amendment, which reads: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” The differences in government structure accompanied by a new legal precedent against a growing federal government may save us from the same fate the U.K. faces.
During the process of ratifying the Constitution, many strong state supporters, like Samuel Adams and Thomas Jefferson, feared a future expanding federal government. On the other side were those who opposed a stronger national government than outlined in the Articles of Confederation, like Alexander Hamilton and James Madison.
Therefore, a mixed system of sovereignty was established and the U.S. became based on federalism.
This is why Murphy is much different than what’s happening across the Atlantic. England centrally regulates gambling, while the Supreme Court case simply upheld the Tenth Amendment and gave states the right to regulate the industry.
The Supreme Court ruled against the NCAA-backed Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act, citing the anti-commandeering principle of the Tenth Amendment, which means Congress does not have “the power to issue orders directly to states.”
In theory, Congress can still make sports gambling illegal under federal law. It cannot, however, order states to enforce their ban as PASPA attempted.
Supreme Court Justice Alito described PASPA’s violation in the majority opinion, writing, “It is as if federal officers were installed in state legislative chambers and were armed with the authority to stop legislators from voting on any offending proposals.”
So why do federalism, the Tenth Amendment, and the anti-commandeering principle matter? Specifically, why do they matter to sports gambling in the U.K.?
It seems every presidential election, the size of the federal government grows and state powers shrink. Whether that be through more economic regulation or an increased role in the lives of individuals, it’s rare for states, or people in general, to escape the grasp of the federal government.
This is where the Tenth Amendment should play a key role. However, courts only recently decided to recognize the anti-commandeering principle.
The U.K. doesn’t have the ability to do this in most aspects, including gambling. If the U.S. operated like this, Congress would implement a federal law regulating the industry. Local authorities, cities and states, would be forced to implement this regulation.
The problem with this method arises when the government attempts to implement poor legislation and force the accountability and costs onto states or local governments.
The same can be said for the system in the U.K. As issues continue to come up with the current system, local officials are at a loss to do anything. They are forced to regulate it by the Parliament’s standards, even if they aren’t working.
While many are looking to the U.K. for a glimpse into America’s sports gambling future, the real answer will be determined as states regulate the industry as they see fit; not as the federal government sees it.
Andy Slaven studied political science and environmental studies at Northern Michigan University, where he graduated in December. This fall he will begin his studies at Marquette University Law School. He is also a Media Ambassador for Young Americans for Liberty.
