Question

In 2005 the issue of steroid use s issue in Major League Baseball came to a head with the suspension of first baseman Rafael Palmeiro. Congress finally took action and forced baseball to come up with a new policy for drug testing, as well as a stringent policy for suspensions. The first part of the law mandated drug testing for every major and minor league player at the beginning of each season, during the all-star break, and prior to any participation in post-season play. The law also called for a 50 fifty-game suspension for the first positive test, suspension for a full season on the second positive test, and a lifetime ban upon a third violation. While the Baseball Players Association and Major League Baseball agreed to the policy, the requirements were forced on the sport by Congress, which said that it would pass a law mandating these requirements if the two sides did not agree on the basic outline.
Several players have sued Major League Baseball, claiming that the contracts they signed under the prior agreementwhich called for punishments for drug use of ten-game suspension, thirty-game suspension, and lifetime bans, respectivelywere impaired by this new contract. They argued that Congress cannot force (by coercion) parties to a private contract to change the terms of that contract. The lower courts disagreed and ruled in favor of Major League Baseball. The case is now before the Supreme Court.
If you were a justice on the Supreme Court, how would you rule in this case?

Answer

This answer is hidden. It contains 91 characters.