Yesterday saw the much-anticipated oral arguments in the case of Christie v. NCAAA, the legal joust that could lead to the downfall of the Bradley Act and open up the land to legalized sports betting. The arguments made before the Supreme Court had little to do 
with handle and point spreads, and everything to do with esoteric concepts like “commandeering.” The arguments made for and against the Bradley Act can be read here in all their glory. Justices Anthony Kennedy and Stephen Breyer showed sympathy for Garden State, with the former saying that citizens of the state of New Jersey are bound to obey a law that the state doesn’t want but that the federal government compels the state to have.” There was pushback from Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, with the latter stating, “All the time the federal government takes some kind of action, passes a law, and then says to the states: ‘You know what? We’ve got this. You can’t do anything,'”
The Hill found the high court’s mood “skeptical” toward the Bradley Act. Chief Justice John Roberts was flummoxed when Deputy Solicitor General Jeffrey Wall claimed Uncle Sam would be just fine with unregulated sports betting. “You have no problem if there’s no prohibition at all and 
anybody can engage in any kind of gambling they want? A 12-year-old can come into the casino? You’re not serious about that.” Wall claimed he was on the level. (Only eight of nine justices participated in the hearing, with Clarence Thomas lurking under his usual cone of silence.) In a conference call following the hearing, the American Gaming Association forecast several possible outcomes, including a baby-splitting whereby only parts of the Bradley Act are struck down, but sufficient to permit wider sports wagering.
New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R), sporting a pink necktie, was buoyant after the hearing. AGA President Geoff Freeman, who has made this his signature issue, took a 
(premature?) victory lap, saying states had moved “one giant step closer to offering a new product that Americans demand.” “This is the fear of every governor — that we’ll be at the mercy of the federal government and that they’ll make us pay for it,” Christie said of commandeering. He added, “today it’s sports gaming, tomorrow it’s something else.” “I heard a court that is suspicious of the federal government’s overreach in this case,” Freeman added optimistically.
Legal expert Daniel Wallach expects SCOTUS to rule 6-3 in Christie’s favor (as does Global Market Advisors) presumably with Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg joining Kagan and Sotomayor (they formed a pro-NCAA phalanx at the hearing). We agree. Yeah, we just went there. Let’s see if SCOTUS makes fools of us when it rules in June. In the meantime, as Freeman joked, “It’s much bigger than Chris Christie.”
* Good news for high rollers: The El Cortez has raised blackjack table limits to $1,000 for regular tables and $2K for high-limit tables.
* After three years of study, gaming expert Steve Bourie says he has determined the payback percentages at Seminole Tribe casinos (not counting multi-denomination machines). Dismissing as an urban legend the belief that Hard Rock International‘s casinos only pay out 60% on slots, Bourie offers a detailed breakdown of which machines pay out how much. On the whole, Seminole casinos are marginally less “george” than private-sector parimutuels, but not by much.
