Christie v. National Collegiate Athletic Association
Issues
Does the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act violate the Tenth Amendment anti-commandeering doctrine by preventing states from modifying or repealing state-law prohibitions on sports gambling?
The Court will decide whether § 3702(1) of the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (“PASPA”), which prohibits state authorization of sports gambling, is a lawful preemption of New Jersey’s 2014 law repealing previous state bans on sports gambling or is a violation of the Tenth Amendment anti-commandeering doctrine. The issue was originally presented when the National Collegiate Athletic Association (“NCAA”) sued New Jersey claiming PASPA preempted a 2012 New Jersey law which legalized and regulated sports gambling. There, the Third Circuit held that PASPA did not violate the anti-commandeering doctrine because it did not require states to act. In response, New Jersey enacted a 2014 law which repealed existing state-law bans of sports gambling. The NCAA once again filed suit and the case once again rose through the Third Circuit. Christie claims PASPA’s prohibition of authorization of sports gambling violates the anti-commandeering doctrine because requiring states to maintain prohibitions is just as harmful to federalism as is requiring states to act. The NCAA contends that PASPA is a lawful preemption of state law, and even if § 3702(1)’s prohibition of authorization is unlawful, the rest of PASPA’s provisions should remain in effect. The Court’s decision will determine the scope of the Tenth Amendment and could have significant consequences for the legality of sports gambling nationwide.
Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties
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)?
In 1992, Congress passed the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (“PASPA”), which prohibits states and their political subdivisions from authorizing, licensing, regulating, and controlling sports gambling. See NCAA v. Governor of New Jersey, 832 F.3d 389, 392 (3d Cir. 2016).
Written by
Edited by
Additional Resources
- Elbert Lin & Thomas M. Johnson Jr., Symposium: High Stakes for Federalism in Heavyweight Clash Over the Anti-Commandeering Doctrine, SCOTUSBlog (Aug. 17, 2017).
- Michael McCann, All Bets Are Off: Supreme Court to Review Sports Betting Ban, Sports Illustrated (June 27, 2017).
- Steven Schwinn, Symposium: It’s Time to Abandon Anti-Commandeering (But Don’t Count on This Supreme Court to Do It), SCOTUSBlog (Aug. 17, 2017).
- Jonathan Wood, Symposium: In Sports-Betting Case, the Supreme Court Should Be on Federalism, SCOTUSBlog (Aug. 16, 2017).