The Defect in the Supreme Court's Sports Betting Decision

Abstract

Four years after its issuance, the defect in the Supreme Court’s sports betting ruling is increasingly evident. By allowing standing-less plaintiffs to obtain an overbroad injunction against a sitting state governor, the decision represents a dubious vehicle for generating lasting precedent on anti-commandeering grounds. More specifically, by permitting five private plaintiffs—instead of the federal government via the Department of Justice (“DOJ”)—to claim irreparable harm and injury from sports betting while simultaneously positioning themselves to profit from the same activity, the Supreme Court’s sports betting decision can plausibly be characterized as having derived from a ruse. This article explores the uncorrected early misstep in the case and explains why such flaw has implications for expanded legalized sports betting moving forward.