Texas Could Legalize Sports Betting in State by 2020 Texas Could Legalize Sports Betting in 2020, Despite Opposition If there is one thing that is true in Texas, it is that lawmakers in the state do not like casinos. Countless attempts over the years to bring casinos into the state have failed when proposed. Texas law allows bingo and the lottery, as well as betting on horses. But a ruling last spring by the U.S. Supreme Court opened the door for states to allow sports gambling.

Texas is one of the strictest states when it comes to gambling and its laws can cover a wide variety of activities. Under Texas law, (Penal Code §47.02) gambling is considered a criminal offense if someone:

• makes a bet on the partial or final result of a game or contest or on the performance of a participant in a game or contest
• makes a bet on the result of any political nomination, appointment, or election or on the degree of success of any nominee, appointee, or candidate; or
• plays and bets for money or other thing of value at any game played with cards, dice, balls, or any other gambling device.

Texas Legalize Sports Gambling

The law does provide for some exceptions such as participating in the state lotteryor placing bets on horse and greyhound dog races (sometimes referred to as pari-mutuel wagering). The law also provides for some affirmative defenses to prosecution:

• the actor engaged in gambling in a private place;
• no person received any economic benefit other than personal winnings; and
• except for the advantage of skill or luck, the risks of losing and the chances of winning were the same for all participants

Additional exceptions include if the person reasonably believed their conduct:

• was permitted under Chapter 2001, Occupations Code; (Charitable Bingo)
• was permitted under Chapter 2002, Occupations Code; (Charitable Raffles)
• was permitted under Chapter 2004, Occupations Code; (Sports Charity Raffles)

The first page of this guide will provide you with an overview of the Texas laws on gambling while the subsequent pages will discuss more specific topics like bingo, eight-liners and poker.

The Supreme Court struck down the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (PASPA) in May 2018 in Murphy v. NCAA, holding that PASPA “regulate[s] state governments’ regulation of their citizens,” which is not a power given to congress by the Constitution. As a win for New Jersey and other states seeking to legalize sports betting, the Supreme Court held that PASPA was a violation of the 10th Amendment, which stipulates that powers not given to the federal government or expressly taken away from states are given to the states. Basically, congress is able to regulate sports betting directly, but cannot tell the states how to regulate the industry.

What is PASPA & What Did it Do?

PASPA made several activities unlawful. Specifically, a state could not “sponsor, operate, advertise, promote, license, or authorize” by law a “lottery, sweepstakes, or other betting, gambling, or wagering scheme based on competitive sporting events.” 28 USC §3702(1) and (2). Sports gambling on its own was not a federal crime, but the Attorney General and professional or amateur sports organizations were legally allowed to sue the state civilly and join violations together. Four states were allowed to continue operations that had existed in those states at the time PASPA was passed. Additionally, New Jersey was allowed to set up a gambling scheme so long as it did so within a year of PASPA becoming law.

The following activities based on competitive sporting events were not allowed:

• Sponsorship, operation, advertisement, promotion, licensing or authorization
• Lottery, sweepstakes or other betting, gambling or wagering scheme

Texas Legalize Sports Gambling Odds

New Jersey passed the law that became the crux of the SCOTUS case in 2014. That law repealed New Jersey’s prohibitions against sports-gambling for individuals over 21 years old, so long as the bets were placed at a casino, gambling house, or horse track in Atlantic City, and only on sporting events. Gambling on college sports or events in the state were not part of the allowed activities.Although New Jersey was allowed to set up a gambling scheme, it failed to do so within the permitted year. The state then decided that it did want to legalize sports gambling. The problem was that New Jersey took years to come to that decision – long after the period of time allowed by PASPA. As a result, the NCAA and several major sports leagues sued New Jersey on a PASPA violation. New Jersey argued that PASPA violated constitutional law, specifically anticommandeering principles, by prohibiting states from changing or striking down laws, in this case laws that pertained to sports betting.

What Were the Odds?

Proponents of legalizing sports betting argued that legalizing the activity will generate revenue for states and reduce the strength of illegal betting organizations. Opponents of legalization argued that legalizing sports gambling will push people toward gambling and encourage unreasonable spending and financial practices.

The Supreme Court on Sports Gambling

The Supreme Court held that anticommandeering is a core right in the Constitution and equates to congress being unable to directly order the states to comply with something. Anticommandeering is just what is sounds like. The doctrine prevents the federal government from imposing restrictions on or “commandeering” state governments, especially in terms of laws that aim to target state activity by controlling or creating mandatory duties for the state legislatures or state officials. The Supreme Court stated that the federal government and the states both have sovereign powers that support our system of “dual sovereignty,” Murphy v. NCAA, (citing Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U. S. 452, 457 (1991)).

The Supreme Court held that congress did not have the authority to ban states from regulating sports gambling within their own state. PASPA was found to be a violation of the anticommandeering rule because it gave direct orders to state legislatures and prohibited states from authorization activity. As a result, the Supreme Court did not even need to evaluate whether New Jersey violated the PASPA anti-licensing provision.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court held that while Congress may regulate sports gambling by creating a federal set of guidelines for the industry, it could not force states to regulate their own industry.

Are There Larger Implications Within & Outside of Sports Betting?

Yes. Financially, allowing legal sports betting could bring a huge revenue influx to states that choose to allow it. For example, in Nevada, Las Vegas pulls in several billion dollars a year through sports betting. The illegal sports betting market is estimated at up to $100 billion dollars. By legalizing, this market would shift to legal venues and generate money for the state.

There are also non-gambling implications of the law. For example, Amy Howe, a writer for SCOTUSblog, wrote that supporters of “sanctuary-cities” may use this ruling as a precedent to not follow directions, rules, and laws set forth by immigration officials.

Can Congress Do Anything to Ban or Regulate Sports Betting?

Probably. Even though PASPA has been struck down and is no longer valid law, Congress could create a set of federal rules or guidelines that would give rise to uniformity among states.

Texas Legalize Sports Gambling Games

What Exactly Does this Mean?

When Will Texas Legalize Sports Gambling

SCOTUS struck down the existing sports-gambling restriction that prevented states from regulating their own sports-betting industries. Now, states are free to engage in modifying, creating, or otherwise affecting sports-related gambling in their own state. Congress may move to create legislation to regulate the industry as a whole but lacks the power to dictate how states are to run their own sports-betting industries.