| Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Association | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Argued December 4, 2017 Decided May 14, 2018 | |
| Full case name | Philip D. Murphy, Governor of New Jersey, et al. v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, et al. |
| Docket no. | 16-476 |
| Citations | 584 U.S. 453 (more) 138 S. Ct. 1461; 200 L. Ed. 2d 854 |
| Case history | |
| Prior | 61 F. Supp. 3d 488 (D.N.J. 2014); affirmed, 799 F.3d 259 (3d Cir. 2015); affirmed on rehearing en banc, 832 F.3d 389 (3d Cir. 2016); cert. granted, 137 S. Ct. 2327 (2017). |
| Questions 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) | |
| Holding | |
| The provision of the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act that prohibits state authorization of schemes in sports gambling conflicts with the anticommandeering rule of the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Alito, joined by Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas, Kagan, Gorsuch; Breyer (all but Part VI–B) |
| Concurrence | Thomas |
| Concur/dissent | Breyer |
| Dissent | Ginsburg, joined by Sotomayor; Breyer (in part) |
| Laws applied | |
| U.S. Const. amend. X | |
Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, No. 16-476, 584 U.S. 453 (2018) [138 S. Ct. 1461], was a 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 here by Governor Philip D. Murphy, sought to have the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (PASPA) overturned, allowing 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, declaring federal laws that the states would have the responsibility to enforce.[1][2] The anti-betting side relied on the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution to keep PASPA in force. It has been suggested that the outcome of this case is likely to be cited in future cases involving the legalization of marijuana, where a similar state–federal question exists.[3][4]
On May 14, 2018, the Court reversed lower court findings, favoring New Jersey in deciding that PASPA violated the anticommandeering principle by a 7–2 vote, and declared the entire law unconstitutional by a 6–3 vote.
- ^ de Vogue, Ariane (December 4, 2017). "Chris Christie goes to the Supreme Court on sports betting". CNN. Retrieved December 4, 2017.
- ^ Stern, Mark Joseph (December 4, 2017). "Chris Christie's Big Gamble: The Supreme Court appears poised to let every state authorize sports betting". Slate.
- ^ Schwartz, Davis (March 21, 2013). "High Federalism: Marijuana Legalization and the Limits of Federal Power to Regulate States". Cardozo Law Review. 35 (567). SSRN 2237618.
- ^ Stern, Mark Joseph (May 14, 2018). "Three Cheers for Federalism". Slate. The Slate Group. Retrieved May 15, 2018.