paspa does do some things. states can't operate sports gambling themselves. individualsate can't have these schemes. statesbasically preempts from authorizing or licensing such conduct. know, i think what matters as much as what the i agree withere is elbert, the way i read the tea argument, there may be five votes or more for new jersey. but what matters at least as much from a federalism perspective is how they write this opinion and if they're writing a constitutional ruling, it's going to be a tough opinion to write because we only have two cases on commandeering so far and they were unquestionably cases about the told to dog something. not just preempting their laws case of the brady law, the gun law, conscripting do the workals to of the federal government or in the case of the new york case, conscripting the states to enact own federal regulation of substances in the environment. this is really different. and so the challenge, i think, be to writet, will an opinion, if it's going to strike down this new jersey law, open up a kind of 10thdoor through th

paspa does do some things. states can't operate sports gambling themselves. individualsate can't have these schemes. statesbasically preempts from authorizing or licensing such conduct. know, i think what matters as much as what the i agree withere is elbert, the way i read the tea argument, there may be five votes or more for new jersey. but what matters at least as much from a federalism perspective is how they write this opinion and if they're writing a constitutional ruling, it's going to be a tough opinion to write because we only have two cases on commandeering so far and they were unquestionably cases about the told to dog something. not just preempting their laws case of the brady law, the gun law, conscripting do the workals to of the federal government or in the case of the new york case, conscripting the states to enact own federal regulation of substances in the environment. this is really different. and so the challenge, i think, be to writet, will an opinion, if it's going to strike down this new jersey law, open up a kind of 10thdoor through th

paspa does do some things. states can't operate sports gambling themselves. individualsate can't have these schemes. statesbasically preempts from authorizing or licensing such conduct. know, i think what matters as much as what the i agree withere is elbert, the way i read the tea argument, there may be five votes or more for new jersey. but what matters at least as much from a federalism perspective is how they write this opinion and if they're writing a constitutional ruling, it's going to be a tough opinion to write because we only have two cases on commandeering so far and they were unquestionably cases about the told to dog something. not just preempting their laws case of the brady law, the gun law, conscripting do the workals to of the federal government or in the case of the new york case, conscripting the states to enact own federal regulation of substances in the environment. this is really different. and so the challenge, i think, be to writet, will an opinion, if it's going to strike down this new jersey law, open up a kind of 10thdoor through th

it would be an open question if paspa requires a regulatory scheme. that is something to look for on the statutory question. the other angle to the statutory question, although this argument, i do not think gets a lot of traction, united states took a different position in the sports themes, but they say it does not apply to a constitutional question. even though this is personal -- partial repeal, it is licensing because by doing a selective repeal only with the state has sponsored gambling, what new jersey is really doing is cleverly channeling sports gambling into state-sponsored institutions. therefore, it turns out to be authorizing or licensing. however, the court, if you read it that way, the court does not have to reach the constitutional question because this says this case has nothing about whether a full-scale repeal would be constitutional, or whether paspa would be constitutional if it prohibited such a repeal. there are constitutional questions at issue that may provide the court from reaching the constitutional question. as for the cons