Key Takeaways
- Murphy v. NCAA (2018) struck down the federal ban on state-authorized sports betting, finding that the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (PASPA) violated the Tenth Amendment’s anti-commandeering principle.
- The decision reaffirmed the constitutional limits of federal power over state legislatures, dramatically shifting the balance of authority over gambling regulation to the states.
- The ruling triggered a nationwide wave of state-level sports betting legalization, fundamentally transforming the legal, economic, and regulatory landscape of sports wagering in the United States.
Introduction
The Supreme Court’s decision in Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, 584 U.S. ___ (2018), marked a watershed moment in American constitutional and sports law. The case, decided on May 14, 2018, addressed whether the federal government could prohibit states from legalizing sports betting under the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (PASPA) of 1992. In a 6-3 decision, the Court held that PASPA’s prohibition on state authorization of sports gambling schemes was unconstitutional, as it violated the anti-commandeering doctrine rooted in the Tenth Amendment. This ruling not only dismantled the federal ban on sports betting but also reinforced the principle of state sovereignty in the face of federal overreach.
The legal, economic, and social ramifications of Murphy v. NCAA continue to reverberate across the United States. This guide provides a comprehensive overview of the case, its background, the Supreme Court’s reasoning, and its enduring impact on federalism and the regulation of sports betting.
Background: The Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (PASPA)
What Was PASPA?
The Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (PASPA), enacted in 1992, was a federal statute designed to stop the spread of legalized sports gambling. PASPA made it unlawful for states (with a few exceptions) to "authorize by law or compact" any gambling scheme based on competitive sporting events. Its intent was to maintain the integrity of sports and prevent the perceived social harms of widespread sports gambling.
PASPA contained exceptions for states that had already legalized sports betting in some form prior to 1991—namely, Nevada, Delaware, Oregon, and Montana. New Jersey was given a one-year window to legalize sports betting in Atlantic City but failed to act within that period.
New Jersey’s Challenge
Two decades later, facing economic decline in its casino industry, New Jersey sought to legalize sports betting to revitalize Atlantic City. In 2012, New Jersey enacted legislation authorizing sports betting at casinos and racetracks. The NCAA and major professional sports leagues (NFL, NBA, MLB, NHL) sued New Jersey’s governor and other officials, arguing that the state law violated PASPA.
New Jersey countered that PASPA was unconstitutional on Tenth Amendment grounds, contending that the federal government could not commandeer state legislatures by forbidding them from changing their own laws.
The Legal Journey to the Supreme Court
Lower Court Rulings
The NCAA and leagues prevailed in the district court and the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, which held that PASPA did not unconstitutionally commandeer the states, but rather regulated them directly. New Jersey’s attempts to circumvent PASPA by partially repealing its sports betting prohibitions were similarly struck down.
Supreme Court Review
New Jersey—by then represented by Governor Philip Murphy—petitioned the Supreme Court for review. The Court granted certiorari, framing the central question: Does PASPA’s prohibition on state authorization of sports gambling violate the anti-commandeering principle of the Tenth Amendment?
The Supreme Court’s full opinion is available here.
The Supreme Court’s Decision
The Majority Opinion
Justice Samuel Alito delivered the opinion of the Court, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Kennedy, Thomas, Kagan, and Gorsuch. Justice Breyer concurred in part and dissented in part. Justice Ginsburg, joined by Justice Sotomayor, dissented.
The Anti-Commandeering Principle
The majority opinion centered on the anti-commandeering doctrine, a principle derived from the Tenth Amendment, which reserves powers not delegated to the federal government to the states. The doctrine prohibits Congress from issuing direct orders to state legislatures.
Justice Alito wrote:
"Congress can regulate sports gambling directly, but if it elects not to do so, each State is free to act on its own. Our job is to interpret the law Congress has enacted and decide whether it is consistent with the Constitution. PASPA is not."
Why PASPA Was Unconstitutional
The Court found that PASPA did not merely preempt state law; instead, it commandeered state legislatures by prohibiting them from authorizing sports betting. This, the Court held, was a direct violation of the Tenth Amendment’s reservation of powers to the states.
Alito explained:
"It is as if federal officers were installed in state legislative chambers and were armed with the authority to stop legislators from voting on any offending proposals. A more direct affront to state sovereignty is not easy to imagine."
Severability and the Fate of PASPA
The Court also addressed whether only the offending provisions of PASPA should be struck down, or whether the entire statute must fall. The majority concluded that the unconstitutional provisions could not be severed and therefore struck down PASPA in its entirety.
The Dissent
Justice Ginsburg, joined by Justice Sotomayor, dissented, arguing that the majority went too far in invalidating the entire statute rather than just the problematic parts. The dissenters believed that the Court should have preserved as much of PASPA as possible.
Legal Analysis: Federalism and the Anti-Commandeering Doctrine
The Tenth Amendment and State Sovereignty
The Tenth Amendment provides:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
This amendment underpins the federal structure of American government, ensuring that states retain broad powers to regulate matters not explicitly assigned to the federal government.
The Anti-Commandeering Rule in Precedent
Prior to Murphy, the Supreme Court had articulated the anti-commandeering rule in two major cases:
- New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992): The Court held that Congress cannot compel states to enact or administer a federal regulatory program.
- Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997): The Court found that Congress cannot require state officers to enforce federal law.
In Murphy v. NCAA, the Court reaffirmed and extended these principles, holding that Congress cannot prohibit states from enacting new laws, just as it cannot require them to enforce federal mandates.
Preemption vs. Commandeering
A key distinction in the case was between federal preemption (where federal law overrides conflicting state law) and commandeering (where the federal government directs state legislatures to act or refrain from acting).
- Preemption is authorized by the Supremacy Clause, but only when Congress is regulating private actors, not state governments.
- Commandeering is forbidden by the Tenth Amendment, as it undermines state sovereignty.
The Court found PASPA’s prohibition on state authorization of sports betting to be an impermissible form of commandeering.
The Immediate Impact: Legalization of Sports Betting
The End of the Federal Ban
With PASPA struck down, the legal landscape for sports betting changed overnight. States were no longer barred from legalizing and regulating sports gambling. Within weeks of the decision, New Jersey and Delaware began accepting legal sports wagers.
State Legislative Responses
Since the decision, over 34 states and Washington D.C. have enacted laws to allow sports betting in some form. Each state has crafted its own regulatory framework, resulting in a patchwork of approaches to licensing, taxation, consumer protection, and integrity monitoring.
For up-to-date information on state laws, see official state legislative websites (National Conference of State Legislatures).
Economic and Social Effects
The legalization of sports betting has generated significant tax revenue and economic activity in participating states. It has also raised concerns about gambling addiction, the integrity of sporting events, and the need for strong regulatory oversight.
Broader Implications for Federalism
Reinforcing State Autonomy
Murphy v. NCAA is now a leading authority on the limits of federal power over the states. The decision is frequently cited in legal arguments and scholarship addressing the division of authority between federal and state governments.
Potential Challenges to Other Federal Statutes
The ruling has prompted speculation about challenges to other federal laws that might be interpreted as commandeering state governments. While not every federal statute is vulnerable, Murphy v. NCAA serves as a warning that Congress cannot circumvent the Constitution’s structural protections for state autonomy.
Scholarly and Judicial Commentary
Legal scholars and commentators have extensively analyzed Murphy v. NCAA. The case is discussed in detail on resources such as the Oyez Project and SCOTUSblog, which provide case summaries, oral argument recordings, and expert commentary.
The Sports Industry and Regulatory Developments
Industry Adaptation
The sports industry, including leagues, teams, and media companies, has rapidly adapted to the new legal environment. Partnerships between sports leagues and betting operators have become common, and new technologies have emerged to facilitate legal wagering.
Regulatory Challenges
States face ongoing challenges in regulating sports betting, including:
- Ensuring the integrity of sporting events
- Preventing underage and problem gambling
- Enforcing licensing and taxation requirements
- Monitoring for fraud and corruption
Federal and State Cooperation
While the federal government no longer prohibits state-authorized sports betting, it continues to play a role in areas such as anti-money laundering enforcement and interstate wagering. Coordination between federal and state authorities remains important to address cross-border issues and maintain the integrity of the sports betting market.
Looking Forward: The Legacy of Murphy v. NCAA
A Landmark in Constitutional Law
Murphy v. NCAA will be remembered as a landmark case in the evolution of American federalism. Its reaffirmation of the anti-commandeering doctrine strengthens the constitutional boundaries between federal and state power.
Ongoing Legal and Policy Debates
The decision has fueled debates over the proper scope of federal authority and the rights of states to pursue their own policy objectives. As more states consider legalizing sports betting and other regulated activities, Murphy v. NCAA will continue to serve as a touchstone for legal analysis and legislative action.
Resources for Further Research
For those seeking deeper insights, the following official resources are invaluable:
Conclusion
Murphy v. NCAA is a pivotal Supreme Court decision that reshaped the relationship between federal and state governments and transformed the regulatory landscape of sports betting in America. By striking down PASPA, the Court reaffirmed the constitutional principle that Congress cannot commandeer the legislative processes of the states. The ripple effects of this decision are evident in the rapid expansion of legal sports betting and the ongoing debates about federalism and state sovereignty.
Attorneys, policymakers, and industry participants should stay informed about the evolving legal frameworks surrounding sports betting and the broader constitutional issues illuminated by this case. For comprehensive legal research and analysis, visit Counsel Stack.
Disclaimer: This guide provides a general overview of Murphy v. NCAA and related legal principles. It is not legal advice. The case and its implications involve complex legal and factual issues that may vary by jurisdiction and circumstance. For specific legal guidance, consult a qualified attorney or professional resource.
