Texans Against Gambling joined Stop Predatory Gambling and the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons in filing an amicus brief urging the U.S. Supreme Court to reconsider a key provision of its landmark 2018 decision in Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, which struck down the federal ban on commercial sports gambling.
On May 14, 2018, the Supreme Court ruled in Murphy v. NCAA that the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act of 1992 violated the Constitution’s anti-commandeering principle by prohibiting states from authorizing sports betting.
Ruling
The justices ruled 7–2 on the constitutional issue and 6–3 against severing the unconstitutional provisions from the rest of the law, effectively striking down PASPA. The distinction is now central to the new Supreme Court filing.
The brief, filed in Flaherty v. Kalshi, concerns whether prediction market operator Kalshi may offer so-called sports event contracts without being subject to state sports gambling laws.
According to GamblingHarm.com, the groups filing the brief are asking the Supreme Court to consider whether Murphy v. NCAA wrongly struck down Section 3702(2) of PASPA. The provision made it unlawful for a private party to operate, advertise, or promote sports wagering “pursuant to the law or compact of a governmental entity.”
The filing argues restoring Section 3702(2) could once again ban states from allowing commercial sports betting, reversing a major part of the Murphy ruling. The brief also examines research on gambling’s potential health effects, including links to depression, anxiety, sleep deprivation and cardiovascular disease.
Opponents call for crackdown
Russell F. Coleman, chair of Texans Against Gambling, said the organization opposes efforts by prediction market operators like Kalshi to circumvent Texas’ gambling prohibitions.
“We at Texans Against Gambling joined a United States Supreme Court amicus brief in Kalshi v. Flaherty because Kalshi and other ‘prediction markets’ operators are, through an incoherent interpretation of federal law, attempting to circumvent the Texas Constitution’s gambling prohibitions,” he said.
“The case is important because if our views stated in the brief prevail, then online gambling disguised as ‘prediction markets’ will once and for all be conclusively illegal in Texas.”
Rob Kohler, a consultant and lobbyist with Texas Baptists’ Christian Life Commission, expressed confidence the Supreme Court would take up the case and rule prediction markets constitute gambling.
“I’m convinced the Supreme Court will take this up because it’s a split, and it will be determined to be gambling. … And we testified at the Texas Legislature on the subject about a month ago. So, we’re looking forward to this [Texas] legislative session and the action of the Supreme Court to stop it,” Kohler said.
Kohler characterized prediction markets as “an underhanded attempt to legalize sports betting” in Texas without a public vote.
“Our constitution is very clear, and sports betting, aka predictive markets, are a constitutionally prohibited game of chance in our state.”
EDITOR’S NOTE — This story was written by Faith Pratt and originally published by Baptist Standard.
