Murphy v. NCAA

• Justices
  • 
    CHIEF JUSTICE JOHN ROBERTS
  • ASSOCIATE JUSTICES
    • SAMUEL ALITO
    • AMY CONEY BARRETT
    • NEIL GORSUCH
    • KETANJI BROWN JACKSON
    • ELENA KAGAN
    • BRETT KAVANAUGH
    • SONIA SOTOMAYOR
    • CLARENCE THOMAS
• CASES BY TERM
  • Supreme Court cases, October term 2025-2026
  • Supreme Court cases, October term 2024-2025
  • Supreme Court cases, October term 2023-2024
  • Supreme Court cases, October term 2022-2023
  • Supreme Court cases, October term 2021-2022
  • Supreme Court cases, October term 2020-2021
  • Supreme Court cases, October term 2019-2020
  • Supreme Court cases, October term 2018-2019
  • Supreme Court cases, October term 2017-2018
  • Supreme Court cases, October term 2016-2017
  • Supreme Court cases, October term 2015-2016
  • All earlier cases
• HISTORY OF THE COURT
  • Cases by chief justice
  • Cases by decade
• Recent vacancies
  • 2022 VACANCY AND JACKSON CONFIRMATION
  • 2020 VACANCY AND BARRETT CONFIRMATION
  • 2018 VACANCY AND KAVANAUGH CONFIRMATION
  • 2017 VACANCY AND GORSUCH CONFIRMATION

Murphy v. NCAA
Term: 2017
Important Dates
Argument: December 4, 2017 Decided: May 14, 2018
Outcome
Third Circuit reversed
Vote
6 - 3 to reverse
Majority
Samuel Alito • Chief Justice John G. Roberts • Anthony Kennedy • Clarence Thomas • Neil Gorsuch • Elena Kagan
Concurring
Clarence Thomas • Stephen Breyer
Dissenting
Ruth Bader Ginsburg • Sonia Sotomayor • Stephen Breyer

Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) is a case argued during the October 2017 term of the U.S. Supreme Court. Argument in the case was held on December 4, 2017. The case came on a writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit. The court consolidated arguments in the case with arguments in New Jersey Thoroughbred Horsemen's Association v. NCAA.
Note: This case was originally classified as Christie v. NCAA, but had its title updated when Phil Murphy (D) took the governor's office of New Jersey in January 2018.

HIGHLIGHTS

The case: After New Jersey modified its restrictions on legalized gambling in 2014, the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) and four professional sports leagues filed suit in federal court to prevent enforcement of the New Jersey law. The leagues argued that a competing federal law, the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (PASPA), prohibited any state government involvement in gambling on amateur or professional team games. New Jersey argued that its 2014 modifications removed the provisions allowing for legalized gambling on team games and that PASPA offered states no alternatives. New Jersey argued that Congress had unconstitutionally commandeered New Jersey into enforcing federal programs by requiring New Jersey to adhere to PASPA's gambling restrictions. A federal district court rejected New Jersey's argument. The Third Circuit, sitting en banc, agreed with the lower court.

The issue: Does PASPA violate the Constitution's anti-commandeering doctrine, which says "Congress 'lacks the power directly to compel the States to require or prohibit' acts which Congress itself may require or prohibit," when PASPA requires states to enforce federal regulations on gambling in the state?

The outcome: The Supreme Court reversed the Third Circuit, ruling that PASPA violated the anti-commandeering doctrine. Legal scholars commented that fallout from the decision could impact other policy areas where states and the federal government disagreed because the opinion "backed a robust reading of the Constitution’s 10th Amendment and a limit on the federal government’s power to force the states go along with Washington’s wishes," according to the Associated Press. The National Conference of State Legislatures applauded the ruling, stating, "This landmark ruling provides states another tool with which they can continue to craft smart, tailored policies during a time of congressional gridlock in Washington.”

West Virginia Solicitor General Elbert Lin said that the case "has all the markings of a sleeper blockbuster." Beyond the issue of legalized gambling in states, the anti-commandeering doctrine "has received a lot of attention recently in an unrelated matter – as the primary defense made in several lawsuits against the Trump administration’s sanctuary cities polices [sic]." Any expansion or contraction of the doctrine could impact the regulatory relationship between federal and state governments.

You can review the lower court's opinion here.
Here is our page on the consolidated case: New Jersey Thoroughbred Horsemen's Association v. NCAA.

Background

This is a case about the anti-commandeering doctrine, which is based on the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and dictates that Congress cannot commandeer state governments to enforce federal law. The question in this case was whether the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (PASPA), a federal law that prohibits states from authorizing sports gambling, violated the anti-commandeering doctrine.

The United States Congress passed PASPA in 1992. The act prohibited any governmental entity, including states, from sponsoring, operating, advertising, promoting, licensing, and/or authorizing by law any wagering scheme on amateur or professional team games. However, PASPA contained certain exemptions. One of those exemptions allowed New Jersey to enact a sports gambling scheme if the scheme were written into law within one year of PASPA's enactment. At that time, New Jersey declined to implement such a scheme, and the one-year exemption under PASPA expired.

Then, in 2011, by popular referendum, New Jersey voters approved an amendment to the New Jersey Constitution with the following provision:

“

It shall also be lawful for the Legislature to authorize by law wagering at casinos or gambling houses in Atlantic City on the results of any professional, college, or amateur sport or athletic event, except that wagering shall not be permitted on a college sport or athletic event that takes place in New Jersey or on a sport or athletic event in which any New Jersey college team participates regardless of where the event takes place.

”

Based on the referendum, New Jersey passed the Sports Wagering Act of 2012. The law provided for regulated sports wagering in New Jersey's casinos and racetracks and established a state regulatory scheme for sports wagering in the state. Four professional sports leagues and the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) (referred to together as the leagues) filed a lawsuit in federal court to stop enforcement of the New Jersey law, arguing that it violated PASPA. In response, New Jersey acknowledged that the law violated PASPA, but argued that PASPA violated the anti-commandeering doctrine and was therefore unconstitutional. A district court and the United States Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit disagreed, striking down New Jersey's law.

Following the Third Circuit's decision, New Jersey passed another law in 2014. Where the 2012 law had affirmatively legalized sports betting, the 2014 law simply repealed both prohibitions and express authorizations for sports betting:

“

[A]ny rules and regulations that may require or authorize any State agency to license, authorize, permit or otherwise take action to allow any person to engage in the placement or acceptance of any wager on any professional, collegiate, or amateur sport contest or athletic event, or that prohibit participation in or operation of a pool that accepts such wagers, are repealed to the extent they apply or may be construed to apply at a casino or gambling house operating in this State in Atlantic City or a running or harness horse racetrack in this State, to the placement and acceptance of wagers on professional, collegiate, or amateur sport contests or athletic events.

”

The leagues again filed suit, contending that the new law also violated PASPA. New Jersey again responded that PASPA violated the anti-commandeering statute. The state argued that PASPA could not constitutionally restrict the state from repealing laws. The district court sided with the leagues, and New Jersey appealed to the Third Circuit.

The Third Circuit's en banc ruling

A three-judge panel of the Third Circuit upheld the lower court ruling, and New Jersey asked the Third Circuit to hear the case en banc. En banc means heard by the full court, rather than a panel of three. On August 9, 2016, in an opinion by Judge Marjorie Rendell, the en banc court upheld both the district court and circuit panel's judgment that the 2014 New Jersey law violated PASPA and that PASPA did not violate the anti-commandeering doctrine.

In her opinion for the en banc majority, Judge Rendell held that New Jersey's 2014 repeal law violated PASPA because it amounted to an authorization of sports betting. She concluded that the effect of the 2014 law was very similar to the type of scheme Congress would have permitted during the one-year exemption period. Since that period had expired, she reasoned, the law was not permitted under PASPA.

Rendell rejected New Jersey's argument that PASPA violated the anti-commandeering doctrine. Quoting from the Third Circuit's earlier ruling on the 2012 law, she wrote:

“

PASPA does not require or coerce the states to lift a finger—they are not required to pass laws, to take title to anything, to conduct background checks, to expend any funds, or to in any way enforce federal law. They are not even required...to expend resources considering federal regulatory regimes, let alone to adopt them. Simply put, we discern in PASPA no directives requiring the States to address particular problems and no commands to the States’ officers to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program.

”

Dissents

Judge Julio Fuentes, writing for himself, dissented from the court's opinion. In his view, the 2014 law did not violate PASPA. He wrote, "Because I do not see how a partial repeal of prohibitions is tantamount to authorizing by law a sports wagering scheme in violation of PASPA, I respectfully dissent."

Judge Thomas Vanaskie, writing for himself, also dissented from the court's opinion, as he did in Christie I. In his view, PASPA violated the Constitution's anti-commandeering doctrine. He wrote, "Because I believe that PASPA was intended to compel the States to prohibit wagering on sporting events, it cannot survive constitutional scrutiny. Accordingly, as I did in Christie I, I dissent."

New Jersey then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Petitioner's challenge

Governor Chris Christie, the petitioner, challenged the holding of the Third Circuit. Gov. Christie argued that PASPA unconstitutionally commandeers New Jersey, in violation of the U.S. Constitution.

Certiorari granted

On October 7, 2016, Governor Chris Christie, the petitioner, initiated proceedings in the Supreme Court of the United States in filing a petition for a writ of certiorari to the Third Circuit. The U.S. Supreme Court granted Christie's certiorari request on June 27, 2017, consolidating arguments in the case with arguments in New Jersey Thoroughbred Horsemen's Association v. NCAA. Argument in the case was held on December 4, 2017.

Question presented

Question presented: "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)?"

Audio

• Audio of oral argument:
  

Transcript

• Transcript of oral argument:

Outcome

Decision

The Supreme Court reversed the Third Circuit, ruling that PASPA violated the anti-commandeering doctrine.

Majority opinion

Justice Samuel Alito wrote the ruling for the majority, joined in full by Chief Justice John Roberts, Justices Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, Elena Kagan, and Neil Gorsuch, and joined as to all but one part by Justice Stephen Breyer. Alito reversed the Third Circuit's decision, concluding that 1) PASPA violated the anti-commandeering doctrine; and 2) the provisions within PASPA that violated the anti-commandeering doctrine could not be severed from the other provision in the law, meaning that the entire law would be struck down.

First, Alito ruled that contrary to the U.S. government's contention, "When a State completely or partially repeals old laws banning sports gambling, it 'authorize[s]' that activity." Having established that New Jersey's repeal was an effective authorization of gambling, Alito explained the anti-commandeering doctrine. He wrote, "The Constitution confers on Congress not plenary legislative power but only certain enumerated powers. Therefore, all other legislative power is reserved for the States, as the Tenth Amendment confirms." Moreover, he continued, "Conspicuously absent from the list of powers given to Congress is the power to issue direct orders to the governments of the States."

Alito then examined the PASPA provisions at issue:

“

The PASPA provision at issue here—prohibiting state authorization of sports gambling—violates the anticommandeering rule. That provision unequivocally dictates what a state legislature may and may not do. And this is true under either our interpretation or that advocated by respondents and the United States. In either event, state legislatures are put under the direct control of Congress. It is as if federal officers were installed in state legislative chambers and were armed with the authority to stop legislators from voting on any offending proposals. A more direct affront to state sovereignty is not easy to imagine.

”

Alito then considered whether the provisions directly at issue in the case could be severed from the rest of the law or whether the entire law should be struck down. For instance, other provisions of the law, which were not challenged in this case, prohibited state-run sports lotteries and prohibited privately run sports betting. Alito reasoned that Congress would not have intended those provisions to stand in the absence of the challenged provision. Therefore, he concluded, the whole law must fall.

Concurrence by Justice Thomas

Justice Thomas joined the entire majority opinion and also wrote separately. In his separate concurring opinion, Thomas suggested that "in a future case, we should take another look at our severability precedents," contending that they "appear to be in tension with traditional limits on judicial authority."

Concurrence in part, dissent in part by Justice Breyer

Justice Breyer concurred in part of the majority's judgment and dissented in part. Breyer agreed with the majority that the challenged provision violated the anti-commandeering doctrine, but he agreed with the dissent that the challenged provision should have been severed, allowing the rest of the law to stand.

Dissent by Justice Ginsburg

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissented, joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor in full and joined by Justice Breyer in part. Even if the challenged provision was unconstitutional, she argued, the majority overstepped by striking down the entire law. "When a statute reveals a constitutional flaw," she wrote, "the Court ordinarily engages in a salvage rather than a demolition operation." She continued:

“

In PASPA, shorn of the prohibition on modifying or repealing state law, Congress permissibly exercised its authority to regulate commerce by instructing States and private parties to refrain from operating sports-gambling schemes. On no rational ground can it be concluded that Congress would have preferred no statute at all if it could not prohibit States from authorizing or licensing such schemes. Deleting the alleged “commandeering” directions would free the statute to accomplish just what Congress legitimately sought to achieve: stopping sports gambling regimes while making it clear that the stoppage is attributable to federal, not state, action. I therefore dissent from the Court’s determination to destroy PASPA rather than salvage the statute.

”

See also

• 

  Supreme Court cases, October term 2017-2018

• 

  Supreme Court of the United States

• 

  History of the Supreme Court

Footnotes

Ballotpedia

About

Overview • What people are saying • Support Ballotpedia • Contact • Contribute • Job opportunities

---

Executive: Leslie Graves, Founder and CEO • Gwen Beattie, Chief Operating Officer

Communications: Alison Graves, Director of Communications • Carley Allensworth • Abigail Campbell • Frank Festa • Sarah Groat • Nathaniel Harwood • Dillon Redmond
External Relations: Geoff Pallay, Director of External Relations • Ken Carbullido, Vice President of Election Product and Technology Strategy • Ashley Fleming • Thomas Mardik • Hannah Nelson
Operations: Meghann Olshefski, Director of Operations • Amanda Herbert • Mandy Morris • Caroline Presnell • Kelly Rindfleisch
Tech: Matt Latourelle, Director of Technology Operations • Ryan Burch • Kirsten Corrao • Beth Dellea • Travis Eden • Tate Kamish • Margaret Kearney • Eric Lotto • Joseph Sanchez • Mary Susmitha

Contributors: Scott Rasmussen

---

Editorial Content

Josh Altic, Director of Content • Daniel Anderson, Associate Director of Elections & Data • Cory Eucalitto, Associate Director of Features • Ryan Byrne, Managing Editor of Ballot Measures • Mandy McConnell, Managing Editor of News • Doug Kronaizl, Managing Editor of Local Expansion • Abbey Smith, Managing Editor of Elections • Janie Valentine, Managing Editor of Law • Joel Williams, Managing Editor of Events • Andrew Bahl • Jaclyn Beran • Marielle Bricker • Joseph Brusgard • Emma Burlingame • Kelly Coyle • Jon Dunn • Victoria Edwards • Thomas Ellis • Nicole Fisher • Joseph Greaney • Thomas Grobben • Brianna Hosea • Molly Kehoe • Tyler King • Glorie Martinez • Norm Leahy, Senior Editor • Nathan Maxwell • Jimmy McAllister • Brandon McCauley • Ellie Mikus • Ellen Morrissey • Mackenzie Murphy • Kaley Platek • Samantha Post • Adam Powell • Annelise Reinwald • Spencer Richardson • Victoria Rose • Briana Ryan • Myj Saintyl • Maddy Salucka • Emma Soukup • Alexis Thacker • Mina Vogel • Samuel Wonacott • Trenton Woodcox