Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Association | Supreme Court Ruling Explained, Sports Betting, Legal Case Summary, Outcome, & Impact

Background

In 1992 Congress passed the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (PASPA) to prohibit state-sanctioned sports gambling. PASPA did not make sports gambling a federal crime; rather, it prohibited states from sponsoring, operating, advertising, promoting, licensing, or authorizing sports gambling activities. Exceptions for certain forms of sports gambling were made for four states (Nevada, Delaware, Montana, and Oregon), and New Jersey was given one year to enact a law permitting sports betting—an option the state declined to pursue at the time.

In 2011 New Jersey voters approved an amendment to the state constitution that would make sports betting legal in the state. The state legislature authorized certain sports gambling activities through the passage of the Sports Wagering Act in 2012, a law that quickly came under attack. The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), along with four professional sports leagues, filed suit against New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and other state officials to enjoin the law under PASPA. The state countered that PASPA was unconstitutional under the anti-commandeering doctrine of the Tenth Amendment, arguing that the federal government infringed on the state’s sovereign authority by preventing the state from modifying or repealing its own laws.

In National Collegiate Athletic Association v. Christie, the district court determined there was no anti-commandeering violation and ruled in favor of the sports leagues, a result that was affirmed by the Third Circuit. The Supreme Court denied review after New Jersey filed a petition for a writ of certiorari, as the federal government noted that PASPA did not require the state’s old anti-gambling laws to be left in place.

In 2014 the New Jersey state legislature tried once again to legalize sports gambling by passing legislation that repealed state law provisions banning sports betting instead of directly authorizing the activities. The NCAA and same four sports leagues responded with another lawsuit, and both the district court and Third Circuit provided the same rulings. However, the Supreme Court decided to hear the case, consolidating the arguments with New Jersey Thoroughbred Horsemen’s Association v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, another challenge to PASPA within the state.

Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, the updated title reflecting the inauguration of New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy, was argued on December 4, 2017. Theodore Olson argued on behalf of New Jersey, Paul Clement gave oral arguments for the NCAA and other respondents, and Deputy Solicitor General Jeffrey Wall argued on behalf of the United States in support of the respondents.

Decision

In a 6–3 decision, the Supreme Court reversed to rule in favor of New Jersey. Writing for the majority, Justice Samuel Alito, Jr., stated that by prohibiting states from authorizing sports gambling activities, PASPA violated anti-commandeering doctrine under the Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. As interpreted under New York v. United States (1992) and Printz v. United States (1997), Congress cannot “commandeer” the lawmaking abilities of the states and compel them to enact and enforce federal regulations. Alito wrote that there was no meaningful difference between directing a state to act and requiring them to refrain from doing so—in both cases, the federal government oversteps its boundaries. (The Tenth Amendment reserves all unenumerated powers to the states.) Alito also stated that the provisions within PASPA that prohibited states and individuals from promoting sports betting were inseverable, thus deeming the entire law unconstitutional. Alito’s opinion was joined in full by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Anthony Kennedy, Elena Kagan, Neil Gorsuch, and Clarence Thomas. Justice Stephen Breyer joined the opinion in part.

Thomas filed a concurring opinion, stating that attention should be paid to severability precedents and the pressure they put on traditional limits on judicial authority. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg filed a dissenting opinion, which was joined in full by Justice Sonia Sotomayor and in part by Breyer, arguing that the court overstepped its boundaries by ruling the law unconstitutional and striking it down in full. Breyer’s opinion, in which he concurred in part and dissented in part, states that while part of PASPA violated anti-commandeering doctrine, it should not have been deemed inseverable, and the rest of the law should have stood.

Aftermath and potential impact

Declaring PASPA unconstitutional put the decision regarding the legality of sports betting in the hands of the states. On June 11, 2018, Governor Murphy signed legislation that permitted sports betting at New Jersey casinos and racetracks. As of 2025 sports betting has been legalized in some form in 39 states and the District of Columbia.

Beyond sports betting, the ruling held larger implications for the relationship between federal and state regulatory abilities. Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Association marked a significant deviation from traditional severability precedent, which could signal a more restrictive approach to other regulatory schemes. Numerous legal scholars have noted that federal regulations—such as those concerning immigration enforcement and the legalization of marijuana—may be subject to consideration on whether they have a commandeering effect on the states’ rights to govern themselves.