Course Hero Logo

Nj wanted to legalize sports gambling at casinos and

Course Hero uses AI to attempt to automatically extract content from documents to surface to you and others so you can study better, e.g., in search results, to enrich docs, and more. This preview shows page 14 - 16 out of 112 pages.

NJ wanted to legalize sports gambling at casinos and horseracingtracks, but a federal law, the Professional Amateur SportsProtection Act, generally made it unlawful for a state to“authorize” sports gambling schemes. The Court held that theprovision violated the anticommandeering rule, whichunequivocally dictates what a state legislature may and may not doThe basic principle that Congress cannot issue direct orders to statelegislatures apply regardless of whether the law is affirmative, as inNew YorkandPrintz, which forced states to do an affirmative act,or negative, as in this case, where Congress ispreventinga statefrom enacting certain lawsAlito says that any sort of federal government attempt to determineand dictate what the state legislature does with its own laws,whether requiring them to pass a law or restrict them from passinga law is a violation of theanti-commandeering principleSovereign Immunity and 11thAmendmentoFitzpatrick v. BitzerCourt held that Congress could abrogate the state’s 11thAmendmentimmunities and allow states to be sued directly for retrospective damagespursuant to a proper exercise of reinforcement power under Section 5 ofthe 14thAmendmentoPennsylvania v. Union Gas Go.
Victoria BarczykCondensed Con Law OutlineA divided Court upheld the constitutionality of a federal environmentallaw that permitted suits for monetary damages against federal states infederal courtoSeminole Tribe of Florida v. FloridaThe Seminole Tribe brought suit against the State of Florida for violatingthe good faith negotiations requirement of the Indian Gaming RegulatoryAct (IGRA). Under the IGRA, the Tribe may engage in gaming (i.e.,casino gambling) activities subject to Florida's good faith regulations.Florida moved to dismiss the Tribe's action, alleging that the lawsuitviolated Florida's sovereign immunityThe Court held that Congress did intend to abrogate states' sovereignimmunity under the IGRA but that the Indian Commerce Clause (and byimplication the Commerce Clause) did not give Congress that power.Under the Eleventh Amendment, all states are regarded as sovereignentities. Such sovereignty inherently implies that states may not be suedby parties without their consent, even if they are given authority toregulate those parties' activities through receipt of federal funds. Finally,Ex Parte Young's ruling does not justify the Tribe's suit against Florida'sgovernor in light of certain IGRA provisions which specifically prohibitsuch an action.oAlden v. MaineA group of probation officers sued their employer, the State of Maine, in1992 alleging that the state had violated the overtime provisions of the1938 Fair Labor Standards Act. Following the Court's decision inSeminole Tribe v. Florida (1996)which held that States are immune fromprivate suits in federal court and that Congress lacks the authority toabrogate that immunitythe probation officers' suit was dismissed in

Upload your study docs or become a

Course Hero member to access this document

Upload your study docs or become a

Course Hero member to access this document

End of preview. Want to read all 112 pages?

Upload your study docs or become a

Course Hero member to access this document

Term
Fall
Professor
NoProfessor
Tags
United States Congress

Newly uploaded documents

Show More

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture