Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Association

Jump to content

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

2018 United States Supreme Court case

Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, No. 16-476, 584 U.S. 453 (2018) [138 S. Ct. 1461], was a landmark United States Supreme Court case involving the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution . The issue was whether the U.S. federal government has the right to control state lawmaking. The State of New Jersey , represented by Governor Philip D. Murphy , sought to have the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (PASPA) overturned to allow state-sponsored sports betting . The case, formerly titled Christie v. National Collegiate Athletic Association until Governor Chris Christie left office, was combined with NJ Thoroughbred Horsemen v. NCAA, No. 16-477.

The pro-betting side characterized the federal government's position as _commandeering _ of state officials via federal law, which the states would have the responsibility to enforce.

The anti-betting side relied on the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution to keep PASPA in force. The outcome of the case was suggested to be likely to be cited in future cases involving the legalization of marijuana in which a similar state–federal question exists.

On May 14, 2018, the Supreme Court reversed lower courts and sided with New Jersey in deciding that PASPA violated the anticommandeering principle by a 7–2 vote and declaring the entire law unconstitutional by a 6–3 vote. The Supreme Court decision overturned the federal ban on sports gambling and was followed by widespread state-level legalization. By 2026, 27 states had legalized online sports gambling.

Background

[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Murphy_v._National_Collegiate_Athletic_Association&action=edit&section=1 "Edit section: Background")
]

In 1992, the U.S. Congress passed the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (PASPA), 28 U.S.C. §§ 3701–3704, to prohibit state-sanctioned sports gambling. The law stated that states may not "sponsor, operate, advertise, promote, license, or authorize by law or compact" sports gambling. The law made exemptions for gambling in four states (Nevada , Delaware , Oregon , and Montana ), which had established legal sports gambling regulations in place. New Jersey had attempted to apply for the exemption but failed to act in 1991, when the exemption window closed, in part because of state-level political issues.

Since around 2010, New Jersey has sought to challenge the federal law and recognized that the state was losing potential revenue (upwards of US$600 million, as estimated from a 2008 report by financial analysis firm Cantor Fitzgerald ) from sports gambling licenses and fees to these four states and illicit offshore entities.

State Senators Raymond Lesniak and Stephen M. Sweeney led a lawsuit by the state to challenge the federal law, but it was rejected by the United States District Court in March 2011, which stated that only Governor Chris Christie , through his attorney general's office, could file such a suit. At the time, Christie had been against pursuing any legislation, as he believed it would be difficult to bypass the federal ban.

Referendum

[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Murphy_v._National_Collegiate_Athletic_Association&action=edit&section=2 "Edit section: Referendum")
]

New Jersey voters in 2011 voted overwhelmingly in a nonbinding referendum to create a state constitutional amendment, which would permit sports gambling. The next year, the New Jersey Legislature enacted the Sports Wagering Act ("2012 Act"), allowing sports wagering at New Jersey casinos and racetracks. In August 2012, the NBA , NFL , NHL , MLB , and NCAA sued under PASPA to enjoin the New Jersey law; they were later joined by the United States Department of Justice ; the case was colloquially known as Christie I.

In court hearings, the state argued that it was aware that the 2012 Act violated PASPA, but it contended that PASPA violated the Tenth Amendment 's protection against anti-commandeering federal laws by stripping the power of the state to repeal its own sports gambling ban. In February 2013, Judge Michael A. Shipp of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey rejected the state's argument, and ruled for the leagues by finding that there was "an undisputed direct link between legalized gambling and harm to the Leagues" and granting an injunction against New Jersey from enforcing the 2012 law.

New Jersey appealed to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals , but in a 2–1 split decision, it upheld the District Court's ruling. The Third Circuit opinion noted the distinction between "affirmative authorizations" specifically prevented in PASPA, and the act of repealing the state's law. The opinion stated: "We do not read PASPA to prohibit New Jersey from repealing its ban on sports wagering." The Supreme Court of the United States refused to hear the case by June 2014.

Revision of the law

[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Murphy_v._National_Collegiate_Athletic_Association&action=edit&section=3 "Edit section: Revision of the law")
]

Based on the repealing language from the Third Circuit's decision in Christie I, New Jersey State Senator Raymond Lesniak revised the 2012 law with the approval of the Justice Department. The revised bill, instead of authorizing sports gambling, repealed portions of existing New Jersey laws from 1977 that had banned sports gambling and cited the Third Circuit's decision, effectively making sports gambling legal within certain establishments (for example, the bill did not allow for underage gambling or preventing gambling on teams from New Jersey). While it passed the New Jersey Legislature, Governor Christie vetoed it since he believed that it was an attempt to bypass the Third Circuit's ruling. However, in September 2014, Gov. Christie changed his mind and supported the legislation's attempt to grant sports betting rights in the states; within five weeks, Lesniak's new legislation was signed into law.

The five leagues sued the state again in November 2014, creating Christie II. Both the District Court and the Third Circuit found in favor of the leagues that New Jersey's revised law still violated the PASPA. In both courts, the judges saw the act of repealing only portions of previous state laws as equivalent to affirmative autho

…