Paspa Overturned

1. Paspa Act
2. Paspa Repeal
3. Paspa Overturned
4. Paspa Overturned
5. Why Was Paspa Overturned
6. Supreme Court Paspa

1. 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.
2. The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act classified sports betting as Class III gaming in 1988. PASPA was the federal law that prohibited the tribes in New Mexico from offering sports betting. But as soon as PASPA was overturned, the tribes believed they had a right to begin offering sports betting. They didn’t wait.

New Jersey countered that PASPA violates the Constitu-tion’s “anticommandeering” principle by preventing the State from modifying or repealing its laws prohibiting sports gambling. The District Court found no anticommandeering violation, the Third Cir-cuit affirmed, and this Court denied review.

Sports bettors, the time to celebrate is now. The United States Supreme Court announced one of its most highly-anticipated decisions today in the Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Association case, and the result is that every state in America now has the option to legalize and offer sports betting.

In an unusually one-sided ruling of 7-2, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the state of New Jersey, of which Phil Murphy is now the governor. The essence of the ruling was that the 1992 Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (PASPA) of 1992 was found to be unconstitutional.

BREAKING: U.S. Supreme Court rules that federal ban on state-sanctioned sports betting is unconstitutional. Decides case in favor of New Jersey. Floodgates now officially open for other states to allow sports betting. #RIPPASPA

— Daniel Wallach (@WALLACHLEGAL) May 14, 2018

The Long Road to the Ruling

The foundation for the case began in 2011 when New Jersey voters approved a constitutional amendment to legalize sports betting. New Jersey legislators then passed a bill based on that vote, and the 2012 Sports Wagering Act was subsequently signed by then-Governor Chris Christie.

A great day for the rights of states and their people to make their own decisions. New Jersey citizens wanted sports gambling and the federal Gov't had no right to tell them no. The Supreme Court agrees with us today. I am proud to have fought for the rights of the people of NJ.

— Governor Christie (@GovChristie) May 14, 2018

Professional sports leagues around the country were vehemently opposed to the law, so much so that the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) filed suit against New Jersey with the backing of other leagues. They won the initial case in the US District Court, but New Jersey then appealed to the US Court of Appeals, though it ruled for the leagues again. Christie then made the decision to appeal to the US Supreme Court, which ultimately agreed to hear the case.

After years of court battles, lawyers for both sides delivered their oral arguments in front of the nine justices on December 4, 2017.

The law at the center of the case was PASPA, a 1992 federal law that prohibited all but four states – Nevada, Delaware, Oregon, and Montana – from licensing, sponsoring, or authorizing any type of sports betting. The four exceptions were made because they already offered some type of sports wagering before PASPA became law.

The Ruling

Justice Samuel Alito delivered the opinion of SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States) on the morning of Monday, May 14. The opinion was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts, Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, Elena Kagan, and Neil Gorsuch. Thomas also filed a concurring opinion. Stephen Breyer joined most of the majority opinion but did write a dissenting opinion regarding Part VI. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg filed the dissenting opinion, which Sonia Sotomayor joined.

The most succinct summary of the decision was posted on the popular SCOTUS blog. Author Amy Howe explained the premise of the Supreme Court decision, which was that PASPA violates the anti-commandeering doctrine of the US Constitution. The mere fact that PASPA barred states from authorizing sports betting violated that doctrine because it “unequivocally dictates what a state legislature may and may not do.” Alito called it an “affront to state sovereignty.”

Look at this language from the majority, written by Justice Alito, who indeed seemed hostile toward PASPA during oral artgument. #PASPA#SCOTUSpic.twitter.com/VdWkBQUJRk

— Sports Handle (@sports_handle) May 14, 2018

Alito summed up the issue in his opinion, stating, “Congress can regulate sports gambling directly, but if it elects not to do so, each State is free to act on its own.” He noted that PASPA did not make sports betting a federal crime, though the US Attorney General and sports leagues could bring civil actions to address violations.

Paspa Act

The conclusion of the majority opinion read as follows:

“The legalization of sports gambling is a controversial subject. Supporters argue that legalization will produce revenue for the States and critically weaken illegal sports betting operations, which are often run by organized crime. Opponents contend that legalizing sports gambling will hook the young on gambling, encourage people of modest means to squander their savings and earnings, and corrupt professional and college sports. The legalization of sports gambling requires an important policy choice, but the choice is not ours to make.

“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 “regulate[s] state governments’ regulation” of their citizens, New York, 505 U. S., at 166. The Constitution gives Congress no such power.”

In Ginsburg’s dissenting opinion, she argued that Congress properly “exercised its authority to regulate commerce by instructing States and private parties to refrain from operating sports-gambling schemes.” She argued that the word commandeering made the difference between salvaging the law and destroying it, the latter of which the majority opinion did.

The full slate of opinions and results of the case were published this morning by the Supreme Court.

Results and Implications

The first result is that New Jersey may move forward to enact its law to legalize sports betting and establish a regime in connection with its Atlantic City casino industry. This is expected to start taking shape in the coming weeks and months.

Second, other states have legalized sports betting in anticipation of this Supreme Court decision. Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and Mississippi have passed laws and can now begin to draft the regulatory details for sports betting. Numerous other states have legislative proposals in the works in the hopes that this decision would allow them to move forward. Many of them will finalize their bills this year.

BREAKING: Supreme Court rules Professional & Amateur Sports Protection Act Of 1992 is unconstitutional. States can now decide to participate in sports gambling at their discretion. New Jersey should be up & running in two weeks. Other states have to enact laws to follow. pic.twitter.com/Yx0lroGceY

— Darren Rovell (@darrenrovell) May 14, 2018

Howe of the SCOTUS blog posited that the Supreme Court ruling could have a broader reach due to the scope of the anti-commandeering doctrine and other laws to which it pertains. She noted that everything from marijuana laws to sanctuary cities might have standing to bring questions to the court based on the legal premise of the sports betting ruling.

Online poker and other forms of online gambling could benefit from the Supreme Court ruling, not on the anti-commandeering premise but due to overall gambling expansion across the United States. As sports gambling is legalized and grows in popularity, more states are likely to consider online poker and casino games as another way to collect additional revenue via the casino industry.

Casinos will also be more likely to favor online poker and casino games when they see how the security and precision built into the technology protects customers and adheres to the letter of the state laws. It will also demonstrate how legalized sports betting can transform black-market customers into revenue-generating bettors.

The future of American online poker and online gambling in general could change for the better, with the US Supreme Court decision on PASPA as a jumping-off point.

The Supreme Court ruled today that PASPA — the law that prohibits sports wagering — is unconstitutional. This will force a major change/discussion in state legislatures about how best to legalize gambling. BIG NEWS!

— PokerPlayersAlliance (@ppapoker) May 14, 2018

Related Articles

Nicholle Burke, April 5, 2017

With several states challenging the constitutionality of the federal sports betting ban, it has many people scratching their head and asking the question – does PASPA go against the US Constitution?

Paspa Repeal

Let me start off by saying I am not a constitutional lawyer. I’m just fascinated by the issues that have arisen around the federal sports betting ban, PASPA. For years, New Jersey has been fighting for legalized sports betting in its casinos and racetracks. They’ve fought the NCAA and professional sports leagues on the matter and have made a number of claims, chief amongst these is that the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (PASPA) is unconstitutional.

Their claim is based on the 10th Amendment, which outlines how dual sovereignty in the United States works. The federal government receives its powers and authority from the Constitution; the states and even the people are given the authority to make laws and rulings on everything else. NJ claims that the federal government had no right to enact PASPA. So we’ve decided to take a look at whether or not New Jersey’s claims have any basis.

How Does The Tenth Amendment Apply To Sports Betting?

The Tenth Amendment of the US Constitution is a portion of the Bill of Rights which defines federal and state rights. This amendment says that the federal government only has the authority afforded to it by the Constitution and that everything else should be left up to the states, or the people themselves. So based off of this rudimentary definition, in order to have the power to prohibit sports betting (or just gambling in general), there needs to be something in the Constitution that gives Congress the right to enact such a ban.

So we took a look at the Constitution and found nothing that outlines gambling regulations. According to a constitutional expert, “the power to regulate gambling, not given to the federal government, is granted to the states. In theory, gambling is legal in every form except where prohibited by local [state] law.” This technical analysis of the governing document of the United States is overtly simple, yes, but does make a good point – PASPA seems like it really does not have any federal ground to stand on. It also appears to directly oppose what is stated in the Bill of Rights.

Paspa Overturned

If it’s as simple as all that, then, why should the federal government be able to enforce a country-wide ban on sports betting when all other forms of gambling have been left up to the states?

Paspa Overturned

What is the Argument For PASPA?

In looking for a constitutional Amendment that proponents for PASPA might be standing on, I found none. In fact, it appears that the federal ban on sports betting has been made based off of general feeling, rather than legal right, which leaves unanswered the question is sports betting legal? That being said, I’m no expert, and there are a number of laws that are like this in place already, just at a state level. So here are the arguments in favor of the federal ban against sports betting.

The NCAA and Commissioners of professional sports leagues believed that gambling on sports led to events like the black sox incident of 1919 and the Pete Rose incident in 1989, wherein players threw games in order to help someone win a bet and coaches bet against their own teams. PASPA was enacted to avoid the destruction of the “integrity of the sport” and the adverse effects gambling would have on teams, owners, and players, not to mention the bettors themselves.

It is the federal government’s job to take care of its people, first and foremost. So in this case, the law comes into play because gambling adversely affected the health and well-being of US Citizens, which is how the members of Congress were able to pass the law. This is still the argument today. That gambling is a vice, one that could lead to the harm of an athlete, be they amateur or professionals. It could also lead to the destruction of someone’s life, as gambling can become an addictive behavior.

What Is The Argument Against PASPA?

State legislators in New Jersey and West Virginia, amongst others, have claimed that PASPA violates the dual sovereignty within the United States Constitution. The issue of legal sports betting at the state level should be left up to the states, and not the federal government. Opponents claim that not only does this federal ban go against the anti-commandeering legislation in the 10th Amendment, but it also goes against equal sovereignty for the states.

The biggest problem that PASPA has is that there is no plan in place for the federal government to take responsibility or control of sports betting in the United States. Instead, Congress enacted a law which preempted states from addressing the issue themselves and just left it at that. This clearly violates the anti-commandeering doctrine of the 10th Amendment.

The state Solicitor General for West Virginia stated it best when he said “The preemptive force of federal law does not authorize Congress to prohibit State action whenever and however it desires. If Congress enacts a federal regime for which it takes clear responsibility, it may expressly preempt contrary State action to protect that regime. But if Congress simply prohibits State action in the absence of an existing federal scheme, it is unlawfully commandeering the States to enact federal policy.”

This in and of itself is a constitutional violation. But it doesn’t end there. Instead of a country-wide ban, PASPA only prevents 46 states from enacting their own regulations. Four states have received special privileges, two of which actively use these privileges. The fact that the federal ban excludes four states breaks the equal sovereignty clause. It gives extra privileges to Nevada especially, as it is the only state that can offer single-game wagering. This gives them the monopoly on a billion-dollar business – and that’s just going off of the legal amount wagered. When you look at the amount that is illegally wagered overseas, it becomes a hundred-billion dollar business. Giving one state a monopoly over something that could help the entire country, especially without giving the people in those states the chance to choose for themselves, goes against everything the United States stands for.

So How Do We Find Out If PASPA Is Unconstitutional?

Why Was Paspa Overturned

So, how can we tell if this federal ban is constitutional or not? This is where SCOTUS comes in. The Supreme Court of the United States is the authoritative body that is charged with interpreting and ruling on cases regarding the US Constitution. The case against PASPA has slowly been moving through the lower courts of appeal, but now has made its way to the SCOTUS desk.

The Supreme Court only takes about 80 cases a year, occasionally taking even less than that. That equals about 1% of all the requests they receive. While they haven’t ruled on whether or not the case against PASPA will be heard, they haven’t denied NJ’s appeal, either. Instead, they’ve asked the newly-nominated US Solicitor General to prepare a brief on the topic, so that they can further examine whether or not the case has merit and should be heard.

The fact that it hasn’t been tossed out shows that they are taking the issue seriously. It also shows that we may very well be seeing the case in court sometime later this year. Despite the evidence that seems to be stacking up, it will be an incredibly hard case to prove. SCOTUS has only overturned a federal ban twice in the last 55 years based on claims that it violates the Tenth Amendment.

Supreme Court Paspa

The first was In New York V. United States (1992). It was ruled in a 6-3 decision that “congress cannot directly compel states to enforce federal regulations.” Justice Sandra Day O’Connor delivered the decision. This decision was reinforced in 1998 in the Printz V. United States case. This time it was Justice Antonin Scalia who wrote for the majority, basing the decision off of the 1992 ruling and adding “forced participation of the state’s executive [powers] in the actual administration of a federal program…is unconstitutional.”

These rulings are the basis for New Jersey’s case, and may very well serve as the basis for other state cases should NJ fail in this regard. For now, though, PASPA is not considered to be an unconstitutional federal ban. It remains in place and until then, prevents land-based sports betting from occurring through the majority of the United States. This could change, though.