Case No. 16-476 | 3d. Cir. Decision
In a highly anticipated case this term, Christie v. NCAA could radically change the legality of sports betting throughout the United States. The history for this case spans back to 1992 when Congress enacted the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (“PASPA”). PASPA banned sports betting in forty-six states, exempting four states—Nevada, Delaware, Oregon, and Montana—that had already adopted sports betting practices at the time of enactment. PASPA also included a provision exempting New Jersey, provided that the state enact a sports betting scheme within one year of enactment. New Jersey failed to enact a sports betting scheme within one year; instead, it waited twenty years.
In 2012, following pressure from residents and under the leadership of Governor Chris Christie, New Jersey attempted to legalize sports gambling by expressly authorizing sports betting at casinos and race-tracks in the state. The rationale, provided by New Jersey leaders including Senator Menendez, was that sports betting occurs regardless of its legalization; if legalized, however, New Jersey can collect revenue on it and protect against the dangers of black-market sports betting. Governor Christie argued that legalization would greatly benefit the state, as it would allow New Jersey to collect millions of dollars in revenue and taxes. The 2012 law failed in the courts but New Jersey enacted a similar, albeit less direct, law in 2014. This second law, rather than explicitly authorizing sports betting, repealed New Jersey’s prohibition on sports betting. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the sports leagues challenging this law. A divided Third Circuit affirmed, and then an en banc panel affirmed the majority. The Supreme Court, surprisingly to some, granted certiorari.
The constitutional question before the Court is whether PASPA violates the Tenth Amendment—specifically, whether it violates the anti-commandeering doctrine. If the Court finds PASPA unconstitutional, then New Jersey and all other states would be free to authorize sports gambling.
The anti-commandeering doctrine, originating from several Supreme Court decisions interpreting the Tenth Amendment, limits the federal government’s ability to coerce state officials into adopting a particular regulatory scheme or administering federal law. The respondents—the NFL, NBA, MLB, NHL, and NCAA—assert that PASPA is constitutional because it does not force New Jersey to do anything as it only prevents New Jersey from actively legalizing sports betting. In effect, PASPA is passive, and the anti-commandeering doctrine focuses on the active nature of a federal law, they say. New Jersey disputes this interpretation of the anti-commandeering doctrine; as a practical matter, PASPA has the same effect on New Jersey, whether it is active or passive, the state asserts.
Cases relying on the anti-commandeering doctrine tend to fall along party lines, so all eyes will be on Justice Kennedy—the usual swing vote. Seeing as state representatives in several other states have already proposed legislation legalizing sports betting, New Jersey will hardly be the only state interested in the outcome of this case.