SPORTS BETTING TODAY’S BIG WINNER | Justices Protect A Claim To Innocence | Solitary Confinement Could Come To SCOTUS
May 14, 2018
THE WINNER TAKES IT ALL
|The Supreme Court today paved the way for betting to become legal nationwide, striking down a 1992 federal law that prohibited most states from authorizing the practice. Justices ruled 6-3 saying the law violated constitutional principles limiting the federal government from controlling state policy, unconstitutionally forcing states to prohibit sports betting under their own laws. JUSTICE SAMUEL ALITO wrote for the majority and noted, “The legalization of sports gambling requires an important policy choice, but the choice is not ours to make. Congress can regulate sports gambling directly, but if it elects not to do so, each state is free to act on its own.”
TAKE A CHANCE ON ME
|Justices today ruled that a lawyer for a criminal defendant cannot override his client’s wish to maintain his innocence at trial — even if the lawyer’s intention is to avoid a death sentence. They voted 6-3 in favor of Louisiana death row inmate ROBERT MCCOY, and JUSTICE RUTH BADER GINSBURG writing for the court said McCoy must be given a new trial. She wrote, “Even when a criminal defendant is assisted by counsel, some decisions are reserved for the client” — including an assertion of innocence. AP’s Mark Sherman reports.
WHAT CAN I SAY, RULES MUST BE OBEYED
|In a unanimous decision this morning, SCOTUS said that even if you borrow a rental car from a friend or family member, you are still entitled to the same protections against police searches as the authorized driver of the vehicle. As a general rule, the justices said, someone who is “in otherwise lawful possession and control of a rental car” has a reasonable expectation of privacy in the car even if the rental agreement doesn’t list them as an authorized driver. That means that generally police can’t search the car unless they have a warrant or probable cause to believe a crime has been committed.
NOTHING MORE TO SAY
|NPR’s Nina Totenberg, Camila Domonoske, Colin Dwyer and Domenico Montanaro put together a review of three of today’s decisions from the high court, including an explainer on the blockbuster sports betting case. And while today’s decision serves as the final word on the issue, they write that it leaves some questions that may need to be addressed in other areas of the law. “Meanwhile, the sports betting decision could have implications for a wide range of other state laws — including those legalizing marijuana, Nina noted. Amy Howe, writing for SCOTUSblog, suggests state laws decriminalizing physician-assisted suicide and self-driving cars could also be affected.”
NO MORE ACE TO PLAY
|For USA Today, A.J. Perez dives into the sports betting case to unpack some of its finer points. Perez breaks down the meaning of the ruling and answers some important questions about its implications, including how soon states could offer sanctioned sports betting, what sports leagues stand to gain, and whether another federal law could soon be on the books to regulate the practice.
MY MY, HOW CAN I RESIST YA
|All the big names in sports were quick to step to the line and throw out statements reacting to today’s sports betting decision. The New York Times has been tracking the responses this morning which include a note from the MLB that their “most important priority is protecting the integrity of [their] games” and a quote from Washington Capitals and Wizards owner TED LEONSIS calling the decision “a great one for sports fans.” NBA Commissioner ADAM SILVER says the league remains a favorite “of a federal framework that would provide a uniform approach to sports gambling in states that choose to permit it” and plans for the NBA to “remain active” in ongoing sports betting talks.
ONE OF US IS LONELY
|Adam Liptak with The New York Times wonders whether the Supreme Court will take up an issue pertaining to solitary confinement — something JUSTICE KENNEDY has long been a critic of since his law school days. In 2015 the justice made the unusual request in one of his opinions of inviting lawyers to file appeals challenging the constitutionality of solitary confinement. Since then, the court has turned down such appeals. But the justices will soon have to consider if they’re willing to take a chance on a much narrower question about prolonged isolation: Do prisoners held in solitary confinement have a right to regular outdoor exercise?
OTHER NEWS
U.S. Supreme Court Turns Away Gun 'Right To Sell' Appeal
Bloomberg“The U.S. Supreme Court refused to endorse a constitutional right to sell firearms, rejecting an appeal by three men who were denied a permit to open a gun store in northern California. The justices, without comment Monday, left intact a federal appeals court decision that said the Second Amendment doesn’t protect the rights of would-be firearm sellers. The lower court also said potential customers could buy guns elsewhere.”
Supreme Court Won't Take Appeal In Blackwater Case
The Associated Press“The Supreme Court is staying out of a case that involves former Blackwater security contractors convicted in the 2007 slayings of 14 Iraqi civilians at a crowded traffic circle in Baghdad. The court said Monday it won’t hear an appeal brought by the four former contractors convicted after a 2014 trial in the case.”
A Dress Code For Polling Places? Supreme Court To Decide Constitutionality
The Hill“Could a poll worker stop you from wearing any t-shirt that expresses a certain viewpoint? That’s the fundamental question at stake in a court case testing a Minnesota state law that polices what you are allowed wear in a polling place when exercising your right to vote. Any day now, justices will decide whether polling places can be both a vital forum for the exercise of personal liberty and at the same time a place where free speech rights are respected.”
How America's Schools Have (And Haven't) Changed In The 64 Years Since The Brown v. Board Verdict — As Told In 15 Charts
The74“Thursday marks the 64th anniversary of the Supreme Court abolishing segregated schools in the landmark Brown v. Board of Education case. That means a generation of Americans has been born, attended public schools, matured into adulthood, raised children of their own, and now reached retirement age — all outside the shadow of America’s own system of legal apartheid.”