book. eastern,p.m. journalist organizes -- analyzes what it means to be a latino immigrant and america with his book. on sunday at noon eastern, our special series "in-depth" is live. watch "book tv" on c-span2 all weekend. at a meeting of the national association of attorneys general, a panel discusses the supreme court case. the high court will be discussing whether the high argue against new jersey.

>> we are here to talk about gaming. i am the cochair of the gaming committee. nag,i was president of there was an effort to set up a gaming committee. agreed to set that up. cochairman toe that committee. if it did not land on me to do it.

my colleague ran the gaming commission. i thought my partner would handle the heavy lifting. he has been traveling a lot, so he was not able to be here today. it has landed on me to talk about this case that is pending before the united states supreme court on sports betting. christie, too. it goes back to the professional, amateur sports protection act of 1992. what that acted did, it banned all sports betting in the country with three exceptions. one of the exceptions was, it states had an existing schemes of lotteries at that time, then they were accepted. that was oregon, delaware, and montana. it made an exception for nevada which already had sports betting. the third allowed a window for states that had casinos already

in place to change their law. did in fact make that change. with that in place, it is my position as an attorney general, and this is one of the great issues that all of us republicans and democrats agree upon, as states rights. the state should make decisions particularly with issues like gaming within our states, instead of congress trying to dictate what we can and cannot do. mississippi joined west virginia's amicus brief in support of new jersey in its appeal, and in the christie case which was argued in december. we are expecting an opinion to come down probably in april to make a decision whether or not it is up to the states to have sports betting. about 20 states have casinos.

some of you have statutory schemes that would allow it to go into effect immediately, such as in mississippi. if the supreme court rules like we think they probably will, reversing the third circuit, then immediately we have to develop regulations. my point to you for i introduce our panel, if you are in one of those states, you better get ready because your lawyers are going to get busy trying to establish a regulatory scheme for sports betting. if you leave holes in it, there will be some slick professional sports better who is going to find those holes and exploit them. so, it is also going to create an issue of what you do for pros and not college. that is another issue. i have a concern about college, because i would think that college players would be more

susceptible to bribes. the counterargument is just as good, that is already happening now, with bookies, and they are already susceptible. the third point is dealing with the integrity monitoring system. there is some software, this algorithm is able to figure out if something is wrong, if somebody is trying to throw the game. europe it has worked pretty good, but i have concerns about technology, particularly in the beginning stages. that will be something that states have to be careful on what they do. the sports leagues are trying to get into position where they will be the regulator. i do not want to see that. i want to see the state law gaming commissions to have that regulatory authority. you are still going to have issues of online and offshore

betting. those are going to be concerns always. they will continue to be. but for intrastate online betting that is where it is going to move to people betting on cell phones across states. in mississippi, if the supreme court reverses, we had a regulatory scheme established to immediately, after regulations are passed, to allow sports betting, solely though on existing casinos which are on our coasts and the mississippi river. tell a experts that will lot more about the actual christie case, and argue both sides of it. a case,ment stems from new york versus u.s. in 1992 where congress, when the supreme court held that congress could that youte to states

had to pass or prohibit certain laws. new york is the basis of the christie case before the third circuit, and now before the supreme court, that congress cannot dictate states what we should or should not do. , christie the first case that went through in 2013 at the third circuit, where the court claimed the position that the third circuit took, and what they said was, we cannot force -- the court held that congress cannot force a pass a legislation that can hinder you from legalizing it, but can't -- it cannot make you repeal prohibitions. in other words, they made a distinction between repealing prohibitions and passing statutes that would have

legalized sports gaming. new jersey exploited that language in that opinion, and that is where christie came from. that is the one before that united states supreme court. the third circuit reversed itself. congress can require states to maintain the prohibitions that we already have in place. that is a states rights issue. being from the south, i am a baptist. not taking a position as to the wisdom of sports betting in a state. i have a first cousin who is addicted to that as anybody i ever saw anybody addicted to methamphetamines. he has lost several fortunes in his life. as baptists, we do not gamble, and we do not drink, and we do not lie, at least in public we do not do any of that stuff. [laughter]

there is an argument against the validity of it. in the case that we join west virginia in the amicus brief and take a position as to the wisdom of having sports betting. with that, i would like to introduce -- and i will do it all at one time here. the panelists that we have. , you are welcome to get appear or sitting your seat. west virginia was the statement to the amicus. former litigator, senior litigator. he will take positions for and against how the court made the ruling in that case. staffwill be the chief of -- excuse me, in nevada.

us in our southern drawl would say nevada. he is going to talk about the experience in nevada, and what we can copy. if the supreme court rules like we think they will. and allows sports betting. last but not least is michael bailey. he is the chief of staff of arizona. he has the toughest job of anybody in the room, trying to corral and keep market street. markis going -- keep straight. mark is going to talk about this decision. i'm going to turn it over to el bert. >> good morning. thank you general could.

-- you general hood. i am still adjusting to the private sector. hood is rightl that the opinion will not come down until april. i was joking with deepak that we make and is talking at 10:00 and have the court rendered irrelevant everything that we have said. try, i will cover a little more of the background terms of things that might influence where the court opinion goes. i will try to give you some insights what to look for when the opinion comes down. as general hood mentioned, the inns -- the issue is the passitutional challenge to the professional sports protection act. it is important that here, before the supreme court in the

second iteration, christie ii, but when i think it comes out it will be murphy versus the ensign aa -- versus the ncaa. the particular provision at issue is that states cannot authorize or license -- there are a whole bunch of other words, but those two words are what is at issue. cannot authorize or licensed sports gambling. what new jersey tried to do the first time, and the way they described it in their briefs, is throughr argument nevada style regulation of sports wagering. they wanted to implement a comprehensive regulatory regime. the third circuit said you cannot do that. denied, anding was the supreme court did not take it the first time around. when it went back down, and in some reliance on what the third circuit had said, and reliance in part on what united states

said in their opposition at the supreme court, new jersey said, ok fine, we will not implement a regulatory regime, we will just repeal in part our laws. they repealed the prohibitions applyrt wagering as they to casinos and racetracks. and only in those locations. that went to the third circuit, third circuit said that is still not ok. , and the courtre took the issue. there are a couple of issues in first is and the statutory question. that is important because the constitutional question is interesting. it is important for all of the attorneys general in this room. you should make that you are aware, it reaches well beyond sports gambling. anti-commandeering in this case could be quite sweeping depending on how the court rules. the antecedent issue is a

statutory question. if the court rules on those grounds, it may not reach the constitutional issue. i said before, the provisions involved, the two words authorizing and licensing, one of the questions asked in the argument by justice gorsuch in particular, why does the statute even apply to what new jersey did here? it is a repeal of a sports kim lindlof really authorizing or licensing sports wagering. possible aely majority of the court were to read the statute not to apply to new jersey's law, new jersey would win their case, and passed by -- paspa would not apply. 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 constitutional question, as general hood said, it all stems from the two cases most people are aware, new york versus united states and prince versus united states. which basically says the federal government can incentivize states to act, it can preempt state action, it can cajole states to act but it cannot make states do stuff. and sort of the real nub of the question here is how far does that go, right? what does it mean to say that the federal government can't commandeer states? and the real intersection here is between the principle of commandeering and preemption. as we know, the federal government can enact laws and if enacted constitutionally under the commerce clause, or whatever other federal power, it can say there shall be no contrary state

law, so is this commandeering or is this preemption and that's really, i think, important ramifications for sports wagering but also important ramifications for all kinds of federal-state relations. and i think there's two potential ways the court could decide this issue. one of them is to say, well, commandeering occurs where you -- let me take it a different way. preemption is where the federal government is displacing state laws, so it displaces existing state law. commandeering is where the federal government is actually prohibiting -- is actually making -- barring the state from taking certain affirmative action or making the state take affirmative actions. so, the issue here would be if paspa is prohibiting a state

legislature from repealing a law that's on the books, that is commandeering a state legislature by making them do a certain thing which is not repeal existing state law. that's one divide. there's another potential way they could go at this which is to say that preemption only occurs where there is an existing federal regime and one of the important points in this case is that there is -- there's some dispute over this but several of the justices seem to agree with this, including justice breyer, there's no federal regime, there's no federal law in place that prohibits sports wagering. the only prohibition of sports wagering is through state law. paspa says that states cannot do these things, but there's no federal criminalization or

formal policy on the books. so another preemption commandeering divide is to say that the federal government can only preempt if they have a federal policy in place but where here, they haven't enacted a federal policy but are simply trying to effectuate federal policy through the states, that's commandeering. i think both of those lines are, again, sort of will define commandeering in a way that could be very important in sports wagering but also a lot of other different fields. the third issue which i'm not going to spend a lot of time on, is the severability question. and as i mentioned, there's only one provision of paspa at issue here and only really two words with that one provision. and so the sports leagues in the united states argued that even

if the statute applies, and even if the court finds those unconstitutional, those two words, or that particular provision the whole statute does not have to go and that, too, is an important thing to look for when the opinion comes out because there are a couple of gentlemen here today that will talk about what you might do if the court strikes down paspa. i think you'll want to be very careful about parsing that opinion and figuring out how much of paspa is left, if anything. it's always dangerous to make predictions about how the court's going to come out. when i clerked for justice thomas, he would always have us make predictions after oral argument and then he would make fun of us later when we got it completely wrong but i'm going to go ahead and make a prediction. i was at oral argument and i sort of sat and listened for a while. it seems to me that there are at

least six votes for new jersey, and that's alito, the chief, kennedy, thomas, gorsuch and breyer. and breyer seemed to be very hung up on the idea that there is no federal regime here, that what the federal government is doing is solely through the states. i don't know if there's going to be a majority for a constitutional ruling. gorsuch seemed to think you could read the statute narrowly. so the devil will be in the details here. i think even if new jersey wins, i'm not sure that the ruling is going to be as far reaching as people think it will be, as people hope it will be. and if that's true, if it's not just a blanket invalidation of paspa, there's going to be a lot of complicating details for everybody in this room to work out.

>> thanks to nagg for inviting me and thanks to elbert for that great summary because it allows me to dive right in without explaining the complicated backdrop. i come here in the unenviable position of talking to state attorneys general about why i think the anti-states' rights side of the case is the better side and normally as an advocate before the court and in cases about federalism i have been much more often on the states' rights side in litigating preemption cases where the question is which prevails, a background state law regime or federal regulation alleged to conflict with it. what's interesting about this case is it's the first time really that the court is going to be confronting the clash

between preemption on the one hand and this doctrine that elbert was describing, this anti-commandeering doctrine that emanates from the 10th amendment. so for supreme court nerds, for law nerds, this is a great case. i think there's a consensus among court watchers that this is potentially a sleeper case, that even though it's about sports gambling and that's why there's a lot of public attention to it, that jurisprudence potentialy could be a really important case that every law student reads in their first year case book. that's because it goes to fundamental questions about how the federal system works. i think it's worth going back to the text of the constitution to set up what the legal issues are in a case. i'm going to read you the text

of the 10th amendment. "the powers not delegated to the united states by the constitution nor prohibited to it by the states are reserved to the states respectively or to the people." i think, and a lot of constitutional scholars think this, the framers thought this was quite a significant amendment, but it hasn't received a lot of significant treatment in supreme court case law. as elbert said, there are only two cases, both pretty recent, from the 1990's, that strike down a federal statute on the basis that the federal statute commandeers the states under the 10th amendment. and the other weird thing about this, if you just look at the text of the 10th amendment, it doesn't say anything about commandeering. what it says is -- what it reads like, at least if you were someone who knew nothing about american doctrinal

constitutional law but knew how to read the english language and read that sentence, i think you would think it was a default rule that says unless the federal government specifically does something, state law will prevail. and yet, oddly, as those of you who have dealt with preemption cases know, the most obvious doctrine that would have flowed from that would be the argument against preemption and the supreme court has been inconsistent in its commitment to the presumption against preemption and the other clause in this case is the supremacy clause of the constitution, which says the law of the united states shall be the supreme law in the land, anything in the constitution or the laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding. i think this is a really just a preemption case and i think some

of the justices, justice kagan, justice ginsburg, at oral argument, seemed to think that although i agree with elbert, that may not be enough to cobble a majority. so, paspa is this law that doesn't actually compel the states or anyone else, for that matter, to do anything. it has no affirmative command of any kind. it doesn't require states to maintain, enact, enforce, or do anything. instead, it just says what states can't do. they can't refrain from taking certain actions, i.e., operating sports gambling schemes on their own or authorizing third parties to do so in their stead. why isn't this just a preemption case? why isn't this just the typical case where the federal government sets forth a prohibition and the states can't enact laws that contravene that

prohibition? i grant that the way this is set up is a little weird because what the federal government has actually said is that states can't authorize gambling and new jersey did something pretty clever which is that it disguised what's really an authorization of certain specific forms of gambling as a repeal, and then it said what you're doing is stopping us from repealing our own laws and i think several of the justices that found that framing appealing. but it's really, as a practical matter, no different from what happens in all sorts of preemption cases, right? some of you may be familiar with the preemption regime involving airlines and trucking. so there's this statute called the airline deregulation act. congress wanted to deregulate transport in civil aviation and wanted to prevent states from

regulating it. so, that statute actually says that states shall not enact laws that relate to the prices, routes or services of airlines. why is this any different? there isn't a ton of comprehensive federal regulatory oversight in that area. and there is a regulatory scheme here. paspa does do some things. it says the states can't operate sports gambling themselves. it says private individuals can't have these schemes. and it basically preempts states from authorizing or licensing such conduct. so, you know, i think what matters as much as what the court holds here is i agree with elbert, the way i read the tea leaves from oral argument, there may be five votes or more for new jersey. but what matters at least as much from a federalism jurisprudence 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 states being told to do something. not just preempting their laws but in the case of the brady law, the gun law, conscripting state officials to do the work of the federal government, or in the case of the new york case, conscripting the states to enact as their own federal regulation of substances in the environment. this is really different. and so the challenge, i think, for the court, will be to write an opinion, if it's going to strike down this new jersey law, that doesn't open up a kind of back door through the 10th amendment to undermine preemption jurisprudence.

and there are some arguments on the other side about the federalism offenses of this law, that i don't think really hold up. one is that there's going to be confusion about whose law is in effect so that's an accountability problem but that's the same in lots of preemption contexts, right? there are lots of contexts in which the state has a law on the books but it's only written the way it is or in the form that it's in because it has to be that way because of background federal preemption. and then the states say that this deprives the states of core power they should have over their government. but again, this is really not that different from states having to conform their law because of preemption. so i'll just say, you know, the federalism implications of this could be huge but the gambling implications could be huge, as

well. if the court rules for new jersey, this is going to -- i know other speakers are going to talk about this more in depth -- it's going to unleash potentially sports gambling on the nation and force all of the states now to confront how they're going to deal with this problem. we filed an amicus brief on the side of the ncaa for an unusual hyperpolarizede time. it is unusual to see a coalition the far right and far left. this coalition includes the christian coalition, it includes the baptist groups, but it also concern groups that are ed about low income

consumers. consumer advocacy group s associated with the left. the reason they got together is because states have a hard time gambling on their own what ends up happening is people go across state lines. governor of kansas. dealing with the problem is like dealing with the problem with tied behind your back. from a policy perspective, i'm concerned. the broad coalition of clients are concerned that the states are not going to have the tools because of incentive and because really to deal national problem.

wanted tof all, i thank general hood for setting the table about the discussion and the case. my job today is to discuss nevada's experience with legal sports wagering. nevada has a long and successful regulating sport s betting. our regulatory structure can states thatodel for may decide to legalize sports of pastin the wake being struck down if that's how decides that case. few minutes i'm going to talk about our regulatory structure, our licensing enforcement regime, as regulations and the challenges that those our states have to

with respect to keeping us on the cutting edge of sports sureing but also making that the industry is regulated nevada'sect to the gold standard of gaming. so there's 192 sports betting in nevada. the industry is about $5 billion wagering handle. that just means the amount of placed in that are nevada $5 billion. the industry has evolved over last few decades. wagering,ludes mobile account wagering, wagering on virtual events, wagering on the olympics. each of these things i'll discuss later in the presentation. nevada's regulatory structure for those states that gamingave a gaming -- in industry. and this is, you know, the basis as theada being known

gold standard in gaming regulation. the nevada gaming commission and the nevada gaming control board governor all things gaming in nevada. the commission is comprised of are part-time members that appointed to the governor by four-year terms. it is involved with adopting regulations that governor the industry as well as improving for licensesroving in the state. board handlestrol everything on a daily basis with gaming in the state. it has three full-time members that also appointed to four-year by the governor and 400 employees. aboutaff that are spread around six divisions in the control board. the two divisions that i'm going are theabout today investigations division, and the enforcement division. so before anybody -- stepping back just a bit, before somebody a bet on a sport or be

the gaming industry generally, they need to have a in nevadacted license and a non-restrictive license is license that has no limitation s. no limitations on slot machines, limitations on table games. that's your normal casino. mgm grand, the sands, the winn. a restricted license, however, that limitscense slot machines. limits table games. truck stop you a might have a gas station with four or five machines. that would be the restricted license. we're going to have sports wagering, you need to have a non -restricted license. the investigations division of the control board does a very extensive background make sure that the license fee is suitable. the enforcement division on the

other hand makes sure that the license team maintains come compliance with the rules, regulations, laws, and internal controls. generalce, the attorney 's office, we have about eight lawyers that advice the commission and the gaming on all of the matters i just discussion discussed. the enforcement division there's 120 staff members. sworn peace officers and 30 administrative staff at bottom of the screen, those are some of the duties of the enforcement division maintains. so investigating criminal matter s associated to any abnormality and match fixing, et cetera. reviewing other event betting requests. i'll get to this later. other event bedding request is now inhe action is right sport sports wagering in nevada. administrative

approvals of parlay bets that house rulethe normal s, surveillance by the en forcement division. that's all done in those staff of state.loyees so in order to talk about where we are with respect to to give as, i want brief recap of where sports bet ting started and how it in nevada. it first came on the scene in 19 with turf club. the time operated at independently from casinos. casino andt have a sports book turf club in the same location. were allowed however at hotels as long as the hotels did slots.e table games or but it has evolved by leaps and bounds. regulation was repealed, and sports books were allowed in casinos for the first

time. the hotel inart of las vegas that had the first sports book with numerous tvs and seating for watching games and placing bets while watching games. was in 1985 decades later that the board mandating all done in a exert byd way as opposed to hand. this is important. hood referenced algorithms. now we use them to make sure there's no anomalies and flush there's any match fixing going on. ago, more than a decade the concept of wagering gaming in nevada. it allows them to place wagering technology.ng a smartphone or computer.

they can be at their house mak sports book.the from 2005 to 2013 there was things call shorthand a book in a box. bookie of sports course that started popping up throughout nevada. the -- the books in a box were in restricted and non locations. meaning you might have a book in box at a seven 11. that's an investigation that takes -- that isn't as robust as the investigation for non-re licenses. its lawsnevada changed and allowed for sports kiosk or books in a box only in non-re locations. you are only going to find sport

casino floore finally one of the more recent fun.s is sports betting in 2015 a bill was signed into bettingwing a sports mutual fund in nevada. first-of-its-kind bill it allows for out-of-state including foreign investors where sports gaming is currently can buy into an entity, put money into an in allownt account, and for this entity to make invest wagering.ports the regulations for this particular bill put the ownous make surerts book to that the entity and everything

was on the up and up with the was okay. so far because of the regulation s, not many sports decided to take bets from the entities. so the industry hasn't really matured. that's something that is on the horizon. changes inrecent sports wagering in nevada. step all the way back. a license for taking bets on sport sports allows you to take bets on sporting events and by any system of method of wagering. like i said earlier, the other language in the regulation is where the action is in sports

betting right now. that's how in a casino in nevada you can bet on the world series poker winner, the nfl draft, heismanr bowl mvp, the trophy winner, some of the more exciting bets on the super bowl. all of those types theets that are out of ordained to be approved by the gaming control board. they work their way up and are approved by the chairman of the gaming control board. prior to 2017, virtual events sports wager were wageringd other events talking about e sports. some of you might have children video games.

2017.f duty, john madden individual tots place a bet on two of the individuals. that used to be an other event. statute that expressly allowed for e sports wagering in nevada and believe or not, there's a big follow e sports star s just like there is of your or cao kobe bryant. all of these issues, the other events and these cutting-edge come out nevada they of the gaming policy committee. that's a committee chaired by the governor where experts from the industry come and bring their ideas. iny are vetted and end up statute of regulation at some point. so what's on the horizon. briefly cut to what's on the horizon.

we tried to accommodate progress proposalsry and desires while being caution with regard to the scope and rate at which we proceed. the law getould struck down, a lot of states are to deal with that balance. another thing that's on the horizon, at least for nevada and states with other professional sports. years ago, nevada did not have any professional sports teams. golden knights an nhl hockey team. it is a first year in first place. we're proud of that. in a couple of years we'll have in las vegas. so, you know, obviously the integrity of the professional sports in nevada is important in the gaming associated with it. you can placetly bets on the golden knight. i expect the same for the las vegas raiders.

but with that, you need to be concerned with match fixing. you need to be concerned with bets.tegrity of those i submit that having a regulated bet wagering system allow s as general hood referenc states tofor determine whether or not the there.ty is and i -- the other thing that's also on the horizon is exactly the topic of today's conversation. it is whether other states will take up legal sports betting should they be allowed by the supreme court. very much. [applause] >> 20, 25 years have gone by

fafsa was put in place. maybe the interesting thing to talk about is what will happen albert put it no part of f afsa is left over. is there any reason to believe do state is going to anything different than 25 years ago. those two things changed quite a bit. arst thing i'm going to tell couple of stories to do that. york. up in new when i was nine i played my second year of little league. dad of a was a teammate and my friends who i grade schoolfrom to high school. boymember as a 9-year-old

wondering why coach had so many samerent phones in the room. this house when he had the team over. i didn't really think about it much after the season ended. i can tell you i revisited the thought sometime middle high years when i learned coaches son was actually running sports book out of a spiral notebook in our high school. second story i was talking the other night. were here.ags members of the stage terry grant woods. i learned they had a similar experience in this kind of expo ture -- exposure when they

were young. when they were nine or ten. general miller-terry suggested you might have. we'll leave that for now. but their experience -- thank you. experience was being utter in the timeen that the got home chicago white sox had been indicted for fixing the world series. point number one what didn't change, illegal sports betting has been around for a while. and it will be. another thing that didn't change the basic philosophical arguments with legalized sports betting. the pro arguments. look it is happening. just like with any of these things. it is happening.

it is dangerous. as long as it is happening, we can regulate it and make some none for the state and get there sideurse on the other arguments against legalizing lottery included works essentiallyive tax and just the regular arguments about regulating or prohibits advice. those two things i think today are probably exactly as they 1992.n the next couple of things changed quite a bit. kind of is hard to .emember the internet back when yahoo! had the choice was 1996. where we were.

when it happened, the illegal sports book was still the phones and that kind of thing. today it is so easy with the and communication available that it has expanded greatly. we have that on side even more betting and more dangerous sports betting off nine yards.e whole another thing that changed in ae past 25 years is really change in the gamable scene in the country as it is. 25 years ago, we were just start to see tribal gaming popping up. a couple of places. but it was a few slot machines 50 miles away from any community that you were going to go to. different. nearly 30 states or territories

have tribal gaming. you in phoenix some of the prime real estate is called talking stick resort. you can go. nick, it is not vegas. nothing is. you can go. it is almost like vegas. up allhings are popping around. the phoenix area recently even tribes bought some -- anonymously bought some land limits and had it put in the trust. now we have built a casino on it limits of glen dale. so this is different. lotteries, even as recently as 2013, new states have expanded into the lottery. states have state- sponsored lottery.

money and theng whole thing. but sponsoring gambling. how do we way these thing s and changes? are the marginal benefits of the prohibitionr with tribal gaming everywhere with lotteries is there as much benefit in prohibition. question, youd of storyone other maybe illustration. this is an illustration i heard wilson give just a couple of days ago. permission tove use general wilson's story? okay. attributed this to abraham lynn con. i'm not going to go into the whole thing. but i'm going to attribute this

to general wilson. that way i think i have double wants ton if anybody blame me for the story. basically it was an illustration of how you can take of facts andet people can draw two different conclusions. but in some cases it is clearly wrong from the facts. draws aa person conclusion. are wrong. so the story goes i think it this.ike where a young boy lives on a on thed he goes out grounds. at some point when he's up play ing, he walkses into the barn. made it uning that comfortable. he saw his older sister in the barn.

there was a ranch handle in the barn. the older sister was starting to lift up her skirt. tolooked like he was going take his pants down. little boy ran as fast as he could. he runs this dad, dad, dad, this what i just saw happening in the barn. he said, dad, i think they are on the hay. had a different conclusion. i don't think there's any room arguments with that in this case. i think we're completely different. we have any guess where it might go, because things are so much different now onn they were 25 years ago the gambling front. a couple of last things, if it

let me say two random notes, first of all, the territories30 state with tribal gaming each have individual compacts with their own tribe on some cases, different compacts with tribes.t it could be tomorrow that some thems compacts will allow to start running a sports book based on the tribal compacts they have. that's not the case in arizona. know the specific state where the compact would allow that. a general class three gaming division, it is possible. secondly if this does open up, we're going to have everybody piece ofn to want a the pie. i think recently the nba made arguments that they should be allowed to take a fee to regulate sports betting

themselves. the pro sports aren't where the to happen.is going thes too much money with athletes. second the leagues themselves have great incentive to promote gambling. you simply note the ratings were down. the nfl has exploded over the past 15 years. that explosion coincided with social gambling interest in the or fantasy football league s.

i don't think we have time for more than one question. 30 seconds. anyone have any questions? all right. you thank your panel, we it.eciate [applause] to oraliday listen argument on the state, county, and municipal employees. deciding ifll be government workers will be

required to pay dues to public unions. friday at 8:00 eastern time on c-span. >> monday on c-span's landmark we'll explore the civil rights cases of 1883, the supreme court decision that down the civil rights act of 1975, a federal law that access tol people public accommodations like train s and theaters regardless of race. marshall known as the great dissenter cast the opposition.d his consent eucalypted the legacy of the decision. explore the state and high court s ruling with the dean of law schoolersity's and an attorney and u.s. member of civil rights. watch the landmark cases live on or listenspan.org with the free c-span radio app. order your copy of the landmark cases companion

book. 8:95 pluslable for shipping and handling at c-span .org and for an additional resource, that's a link on the web site to the national constitution centers constitution. budget director mulvaney spoke. he also answered questions from the states attorneys general in attendance. this is 25 minutes. >> we're honored today to have mulvaney with us. he's the current director of the management and act ing director of the consumers financial protection bureau. appointments, director mulvaney served in south carolina. stranger to d