“A more direct affront to state sovereignty is not easy to imagine.â€By Damon Root
“A more direct affront to state sovereignty is not easy to imagine.â€
In a major victory for federalism advocates, the U.S. Supreme Court today struck down a provision of federal law that prohibited state governments from legalizing sports gambling. "That provision unequivocally dictates what a state legislature may and may not do," the Supreme Court observed in Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Association.* "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."
At issue in Murphy v. N.C.A.A. was a provision of the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act of 1992 (PASPA), which made it illegal for "a governmental entity to sponsor, operate, advertise, promote, license, or authorize by law or compact" sports betting.
The state of New Jersey ran afoul of PASPA after voters amended the state constitution in order to legalize sports betting at racetracks and casinos. State lawmakers followed up by enacting a partial repeal of the existing state ban.
. . . The sports leagues argued that the state had explicitly contravened the federal rule barring state legalization as spelled out in PASPA. The U.S. Justice Department agreed with the leagues and filed a supporting brief urging SCTOUS to rule against New Jersey.
In its opinion today, the Supreme Court acknowledged that New Jersey had indeed violated PASPA, but then concluded that the provision at issue was itself unconstitutional under the federalism principles contained in the 10th Amendment . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------
* Justice Alito wrote for the 7-2 majority; Justice Ginsberg wrote a full dissent joined by Justice Sotomayor; none of the other majority justices wrote concurring opinions and Sotomayor didn't write her own dissenting opinion.
And, by the way, the fact that the Supreme Court struck down the federal law in question doesn't mean that---should more states opt to legalise sports betting---professional sports organisations can't bar their athletes or other employees from betting on their own sports. All manner of employers impose restrictions on all manner of activities by their employees as conditions of employment for assorted reasons, and professional sports organisations are (and should be) no different in that regard.
---EA.
