PHILIP D. MURPHY v. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION
Supreme Court of the US, Alito, May 14, 2018,
The Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (PASPA) – The PASPA is unconstitutional in that it disallows gambling unless a state had gambling in the early 1990s.
(Concur – Thomas- PASPA is unconstitutional, but the Court should reconsider how it severs unconstitutional statutes)
(Concur in part, dissent in part – Breyer – The offending portion should be severed; the entire statute isn’t unconstitutional)
(Dissent – Ginsburg with Sotomayor and partially with Breyer – PASPA should be salvaged, not scrapped)
Facts:
In 1991, Congress passed the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (PASPA).
This law made it illegal for state and local governments to allow sports gambling and made it illegal to “sponsor, operate, advertise, or promote, pursuant to the law or compact of a governmental entity,” gambling on “competitive games in which amateur or professional athletes participate, or are intended to participate, or on one or more performances of such athletes in such games” where such gambling was allowed by state or local law.
PASPA didn’t make sports gambling a crime, but did allow the Attorney General or a sports league to seek an injunction against the gambling.
The PASPA also had a provision that gave state and local governments a year to decide whether they wanted sports gambling or not.
New Jersey did not allow sports gambling at that time.
In 2012, New Jersey amended its state constitution to allow sports gambling.
The NCAA and professional sports leagues challenged the New Jersey law.
New Jersey fought back, arguing that PASPA is unconstitutional in that the federal government can’t tell the States which laws to pass and which laws not to pass.
Held: The Supreme Court held that PASPA is unconstitutional
Dual Sovereignty – The United States is a “dual sovereign” government with both states and the federal government having “sovereign” powers.
Dual Sovereignty – This “dual sovereign” status is limited in some respects. The US Constitution gives Congress certain “enumerated powers” where it has exclusive authority. In other areas, Congress and the States share authority (but Congress wins if there’s a disagreement).
Anticommandeering – Congress is not allowed to issue direct orders to the States, because they are both “sovereigns.”
Note: If Congress passes a law it’s allowed to pass, it can simply do so and any conflicting State laws are pre-empted. But Congress can’t directly order the States to pass or not pass certain laws.
From the Case: Congress may not simply commandeer the legislative processes of the States by directly compelling them to enact and enforce a federal regulatory program
Anticommandeering – This applies whether Congress is telling the States what to do AND where Congress is telling the States what not to do
From the Case: The PASPA provision at issue here—prohibiting state authorization of sports gambling—violates the anticommandeering rule.
From the Case: “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. PASPA regulates state governments’ regulation of their citizens. The Constitution gives Congress no such power.”