Term: 2017
Docket: 16-476
Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Association
- Pro
16-476 MURPHY, GOVERNOR OF NJ V. NCAA DECISION BELOW: 832 F.3d 389 CONSOLIDATED WITH 16-477 FOR ONE HOUR ORAL ARGUMENT. CERT. GRANTED 6/27/2017 QUESTION PRESENTED: This Court's decision in New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992), holds that the Constitution's fundamental federal structure does not permit Congress to "directly . . . compel the States to require or prohibit [certain] acts." Id. at 166. In September 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit upheld the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act ("PASPA"), 28 U.S.C. § 3701 et seq., against a constitutional challenge under New York by construing PASPA’s proscription against States "authoriz[ing]" sports wagering "by law" narrowly to prohibit only the "affirmative 'authorization by law' of gambling schemes," and not repeals by States of existing sports wagering prohibitions. See Nat'l Collegiate Athletic Ass'n v. Gov. of N.J. (Christie I), 730 F.3d 218, 233 (3d Cir. 2013). After New Jersey then proceeded to repeal certain of its prohibitions on sports wagering in specified venues in the State, the en banc court reversed course and interpreted PASPAa as making it "unlawful" for New Jersey to repeal its prohibitions and affirmed an injunction that requires the State to reinstate the repealed state-law prohibitions. The court then held that it was constitutional for federal law to dictate the extent to which States must maintain their prohibitions on sports wagering. The question presented is: Does a federal statute that prohibits modification or repeal of state-law prohibitions on private conduct impermissibly commandeer the regulatory power of States in contravention of New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992)? LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 14-4546, 14-4568, 14-4569
The U.S. Supreme Court case Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Association (2017) revolved around the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (PASPA), a federal law that prohibited states from legalizing sports gambling. The state of New Jersey, led by then-Governor Phil Murphy, challenged this law arguing it violated the Tenth Amendment's anti-commandeering principle which prevents Congress from forcing states to enact or enforce federal regulations. In May 2018, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of New Jersey with a 6-3 decision stating that PASPA was unconstitutional as it infringed upon state sovereignty rights under the Tenth Amendment. This landmark ruling opened up possibilities for other states to legalize sports betting if they choose.
In the dissenting opinion for Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, Justice Ginsburg, joined by Justices Sotomayor and Breyer (in part), argued that striking down the entirety of the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (PASPA) was an overreach. They contended that even if parts of PASPA violated anti-commandeering principles - specifically those prohibiting states from authorizing sports gambling - other provisions should have been allowed to stand. These include sections preventing private actors from operating sports gambling schemes if state law didn't authorize it or where a state had yet to enact a scheme but might do so in future. The dissenters believed these could function independently without needing states' authorization, thus not violating anti-commandeering principles. Therefore, they felt only problematic portions should be invalidated while leaving intact remaining provisions – a legal principle known as "severability". In their view, this would respect Congress's legislative role better than voiding PASPA entirely.
