In 2012, New Jersey approved an amendment to its constitution legalizing sports gambling schemes in Atlantic City and horse racing tracks across the state, challenging the 1992 Profession and Amateur Sports Protection Act (PASPA), 28 U. S. C. §3702(1). The Act bans states from authorizing or licensing sports betting with the exception of Las Vegas. Therefore, when New Jersey legalized sports betting, four major sports leagues brought an action to federal court. Most notably, the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) filed a lawsuit against New Jersey’s governor and other state officials, citing PASPA violations. New Jersey countered that PASPA violates the “anti-commandeering” doctrine that prevents the United States from modifying or repealing its previous legislation on sports gambling. Sports leagues wanted to protect the integrity of the games, and argued that at the college level in particular, athletes could be subjected to fixing games given that they do not receive any compensation. The dispute went to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, which ruled in favor of the sports leagues. In 2014, a new law went into force in New Jersey rolling back existing bans on sports betting, at least as they applied to New Jersey casinos and racetracks. The NCAA filed another suit to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, which again ruled against New Jersey, citing that the new law was a violation of PASPA. Although both Courts ruled in favor of the sports leagues, the United States Supreme Court granted New Jersey’s petition for a writ of certiorari on June 27, 2017. The case was docketed as Christie v. NCAA and the consolidated case New Jersey Thoroughbred Horsemen’s Association v. NCAA.
Arguments were held before the Court on December 4, 2017, and showcased the various angles from which the case could be argued. The petitioner’s grounds for appeal were based on the anti-commandeering doctrine associated with the Tenth Amendment. The respondent argument, delivered by Paul D. Clement, called for the ban on sports wagering to be upheld because of the detrimental effect it could have on individual leagues, the performance of athletes, and the integrity of sports as a whole. Additionally, the legalization was argued to potentially encourage the commencement of gambling, game fixing, and other illicit behavior from a younger age. On behalf of the Governor of New Jersey, Theodore B. Olsen specifically argued that PASPA persisted in the infringement on states’ rights and the violation of states’ regulations after it was formed as a new amendment to the state constitution. During the oral arguments, Justice Sotomayor questioned the acceptance of state regulation in respect to interstate commerce. Furthermore, Sotomayor examined the ethical implications it could have for student-athletes. Additionally, Justice Kagan discussed the responsibility of the federal government to uphold and enforce legislation as well as the implications of legalization regarding states’ economies.
In May 2018, the Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision, reversed the ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in regards to Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Association. Justices Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas, Alito, Kagan, and Gorsuch ruled in favor of New Jersey, whereas Justices Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Breyer dissented. The Court also emphasized in its verdict that under the Tenth Amendment, there was no substantial difference between directing a state legislature to enact new legislation or prohibiting one from doing so. Further, through the anti-commandeering principle, a precedent set by New York v. Printz stating that Congress must require states to enforce federal law, there is no meaningful difference between requiring a state legislature to adopt or prevent a new law, because the legislature mandates what state provisions are. Therefore, the ruling found PASPA unconstitutional on the grounds that the Act infringed on states’ rights. In the majority opinion, Justice Alito stated, “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.” The foundational ground with which the Court complied is a significant aspect of the Constitution, underpinning liberty and federal/state accountability and preventing Congress from an overreach on shifting the regulatory cost to the states.
This case serves as an important precedent going forward in allowing states to permit sports gambling and apply amendments without infringement from the federal government. Accordingly, the approval of state legislation promulgating the legalization of sports gambling serves as a catalyst in boosting both the economy of the state passing such legislation and the U.S. gambling industry.