Recent sports betting ruling may aid sanctuary city policy- via states’ rights argument


Marit & Toomas Hinnosaar/Flickr

One of the many sports books in a Las Vegas casino.

Jesse Tannous, Reporter

Phoenix is not a sanctuary city.

But other cities that claim sanctuary city status—may find that the recent ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court in favor of New Jersey last Monday—a ruling that effectively ended the 25-year limited sports betting to one state (Nevada)—could aid their respective legal battles over sanctuary status in the face of Trump’s immigration enforcement policies.

The 6-3 Supreme Court decision that ruled against the former betting law known as PAPSA was declared unconstitutional.

The ruling could change the legal landscape because sports betting legislation has now landed squarely in the laps of state.

In other words, the federal law could not limit gambling to one state by restricting other states and was ruled as unconstitutional.

For many, the ruling is seen as a victory for states’ rights.

The federal appeals court in Chicago held in its most recent ruling over Trump’s immigration policy that the federal government cannot withhold public safety grants from cities that won’t comply with enforcement policies.

Lawsuits have also challenged that forcing local police to essentially act as immigration officers is eroding trust among communities and the police charged with their safety.

The Trump administration contends that cities that do not comply with federal immigration enforcement policy are essentially aiding dangerous criminals.

The Trump administration has also issued an executive order that would withhold federal money from any jurisdiction that is noncompliant.

This latest order is being met with legal challenges from states as well even though the Trump administration has sued California over their laws that protect undocumented immigrants.

But this new sports betting ruling is seen as a crack in the door to states’ rights and their right to legislate.

In a recent New York Times article, the Chicago ruling, according to a senior fellow of constitutional law, effectively means that the federal government cannot force state and local authorities to cooperate with federal immigration authorities.