the matter under advisement all our next case national collegiate athletic association et al versus the governor of the state of new jersey get out the court the sports leagues in the united states are viewed at every level of the federal judiciary including the united states supreme court that new jersey was not required to maintain and held that passport only prohibited the issuance of licenses or affirmative authorization by law of sports wagering now mr olson you talk about affirmative authorization but the statute authorize mean does it mean to permit does it mean to allow does it mean to sanction does it mean to indicate designate what does it mean in the context of this court's opinion it means that it's not prohibited this court said that authorization and repeal i mean if prohibition prohibition was repealed in this country which meant that people could drink what it publishing was repealed to the extent that drinking could occur in private if it passed then means that requiring a state to maintain an ordinance prohibiting this or statute for hitting a second body that would raise tenth amendment questions and when this court heard those arguments the last time twice in your opinion you said that that those would raise significant constitutional questions repeal an authorization as a false equivalence and responding to the arguments made bar or poems always up to person there's an exam we want interesting this fact pattern we were addressing total week hero as a false equivalence as compared to repeal all that designates the permission of some but not others this was not before us the partial repeal of will what was before you w we don't believe it's not up to us of course we make arguments are the ones that decide what you meant to have prior opinion well i submit that the context of that opinion and the outcome of that opinion if if the federal government hundred yards from schools or in other locations precise racetracks and casinos and limited to twenty one year olds with the passing of that prohibition all the sudden mean there was a violation of  wm concept that the repeal in certain locations somehow is an authorization and then you have to repeat a statute that was enacted to prohibit the spread or limit pacino but it's not a matter of state regulation as the declaration demonstrate what is the idea that you have to get the casinos license casinos permission to operate sports anything that casino you have to get any land o office building owner or building owners permission to operate anything in their billet if you own a grocery store and you have a concession stand in there or people giving out so many girl scout cookies  do you read past the to prohibit the states from regulating imposing any kind of brake emissions on the sports going well yes for owens are essentially saying now set up as compared to the two thousand fallback is that the state has no rule in licensing acting passed out was they don't want the idea of state involvement would make gaining seem appealing and they didn't want to see you know so you're arguing the integrity of these institutions why doesn't that really run counter to the idea that that this kind of designation if you will of places with integrity might be something congress really didn't want as the act makes it clear that this is not wealth or is it by law that this is not a licensing provision and if one looks at that it there's no question about it aside from the statement the statement says we're just trying to comply with said and you said what you meant and we followed your guidance one hundred percent thank you but let me ask you talking about context here we have these words sponsor operate advertise promote license authorized you know there is a canon associated words ham and all of these words anticipating something more something something up formative should we need not read all the rise to mean something more than merely permit should we read it to say authorized by you know and powering giving it the state imprimatur if you will i get back to the issue of how do we read authorize and doesn't the context in the passage make it seem like the state has to do something by law that is a scheme as compared to just saying ok you can do it at these places well the color response is your honor i mean i think that in terms of the context you obviously can look at the serenity words i think you can also look at the  history i think that's still alive in this country if you look at the senate report there are three things that it's crystal clear that congress is concerned about they're concerned about states having state lotteries that involve sports gambling they are concerned with racetracks that are already venues for state authorized gambling have a sports gambling and there are specific group of the senate report it's very specific at that time in florida it's going through the process of renewing the licenses it's racetracks in not take advantage of now i think that shows you is that congress was particularly concerned with the idea that sports gain weight would take place in the values that states had selected as being the venue state authorized came with it and i think we i don't think we can go beyond the language of the law and really look at that i mean it's fair to tend to know about it but unless there's an ambiguity in the law you know there really doesn't isn't really a need and i again i look at the other words and they require something more than i mean it really requires involvement of the state promoting licensing advertising it you know putting its its seal of approval if you will the only venues in the state that are allowed to do sports game boy to be the ones that are the state authorized state licensed they use for that kind of sports game and obviously they're going to try really hard to say well the sports land is going to be less regulated than the rest of  vast majority of the prohibition in place and then it's alas not just the favored venues but they also tries to you know essentially dictate who's going to be able to engage in sports gambling and what games they're going to be able to bat at that point that then use that we selected which i think is problematic and another statute that would say well this is only criminal if it takes place in certain venues i think there is it common sense but also all that legal difference between state that says you know we're going  generally decriminalize gambling but we're still going to prevent being within a thousand feet of the school in that i think it's fundamentally different from a state that says it's still on the wall to engage in game or sports game with anywhere to save except  issue is the dividing line is maybe fifty percent because you can be sure all prohibition in very narrow exception still but i think the way think about that is that the authorization to engage in the conduct is being it becomes a little harder but at the end of the day i don't think it becomes that hard because you still have the only venues that are selected a bar venues that either have a current license for some kind of state authorized recently had one but if there's a partial repeal of prohibition and the only place that you can do it is a quiet scrub it worse some other private clubs that think the way to understand that is no into the building for you to drink there doesn't stem from your you know we the people here they want to have sort of a complete repeal i think there's actually an interesting question if the state let me jersey has a complete repeal what happens if that the casinos and i mean that but you know i don't think we're going to get there because i think the state of new jersey wants to have a complete repeal but that gets to the point that your hon said in christie one which is there are choices available for the state there's maybe hard choices but they're not unconstitutional choices i do think they think it's a completely binary choice because as i said i do think there are partial repeal licensed by the state you can only occur at you know veterinary you know offices and they're licensed by the state i mean are you saying that if it were directed anyplace that is required to get a license from the state then that would this kind of gaming not sports gaming the casino would say ah have a look at the law olson thank you made please the court this is not a question of state well that's before this court or the state constitution or what the governor or some legislator might want to see app it is a question of federal law the meaning and interpretation of a federal statute now it is a very bad law congress wanted to be involved in this with respect to spaces that are wagering on sports and it decided to do regime you talked about a permit issue nine races in state issued a license affirmative authorization authorization by wa state scheme state sponsored state sanctioned and then that was in  my opponents in the district court in this score and to the supreme court don't take this case because we peel is not authorization oh no the state may or repeal issue involved now what does this statute mean what it means and we were at the beginning of this thing that exactly what's happening here on mr commences we're trying to that and while some people might like to have lots more wagering in new jersey there's no doubt about that but they are trying to comply with the law because of that the law was unconstitutional they said you can't come in and require us to maintain or enforce relate taking off our hands we're agnostic about it and that's what was said over and over again i won't repeat all of these locations because i'm out of time but they were sent over and over again we're assuming he's saying that ensures ease retain a new interest