National Collegiate Athletic Ass'n v. Governor of New Jersey
2013 WL 5184139, 730 F.3d 208 (2013)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A federal law that prohibits states from authorizing a particular activity is a valid exercise of Congress's Commerce Clause power and does not violate the anti-commandeering doctrine, as it constitutes a permissible preemption of state law rather than an impermissible command for the state to enact or enforce a federal regulatory program.
Facts:
- In 1992, Congress enacted the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (PASPA), which made it unlawful for a state to authorize by law a sports gambling scheme.
- PASPA contained a grandfather clause exempting Nevada, which already had widespread legal sports betting, and offered New Jersey a one-year window to legalize sports wagering in Atlantic City.
- New Jersey chose not to legalize sports wagering within the one-year window provided by PASPA.
- In November 2011, New Jersey voters approved an amendment to the state constitution permitting the legislature to authorize wagering on professional, college, or amateur sports.
- Following the constitutional amendment, the New Jersey Legislature enacted the Sports Wagering Law, which permitted state authorities to license sports gambling at casinos and racetracks.
Procedural Posture:
- A coalition of professional and collegiate sports leagues sued New Jersey officials in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, seeking to enjoin the state's Sports Wagering Law.
- The leagues asserted that the New Jersey law was preempted by the federal Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (PASPA).
- The District Court denied New Jersey's motion to dismiss for lack of standing.
- The United States intervened as a plaintiff to defend the constitutionality of PASPA.
- The District Court granted summary judgment to the leagues, upheld PASPA as constitutional, and permanently enjoined New Jersey from implementing its sports betting law.
- New Jersey officials (Appellants) appealed the District Court's judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (PASPA), which prohibits a state from licensing or authorizing sports gambling, violate the U.S. Constitution's anti-commandeering doctrine?
Opinions:
Majority - Fuentes, Circuit Judge
No, the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (PASPA) does not violate the anti-commandeering doctrine. PASPA is a constitutional exercise of Congress's Commerce Clause power that permissibly preempts contrary state law under the Supremacy Clause without compelling states to take affirmative action. The court reasoned that sports wagering is an economic activity that substantially affects interstate commerce, placing it within Congress's regulatory authority. Crucially, the court distinguished PASPA from the laws struck down in New York v. United States and Printz v. United States, which unconstitutionally compelled states to take affirmative legislative or executive action. PASPA, in contrast, imposes a negative command—it prohibits states from authorizing sports gambling but does not require them to enact any laws, maintain existing prohibitions, expend any funds, or enforce a federal program. This prohibition is a form of preemption, which is a routine and valid operation of the Supremacy Clause, not an act of commandeering.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Vanaskie, Circuit Judge
Yes, the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (PASPA) violates the anti-commandeering doctrine. PASPA impermissibly directs how states must regulate sports gambling, thereby contravening the principles of federalism established in New York v. United States. The dissent argued that the distinction between an affirmative command and a negative prohibition is illusory, as both methods result in the federal government regulating how states regulate private commerce, a power Congress lacks. Unlike valid preemption statutes, PASPA does not establish a comprehensive federal regulatory scheme; it simply foists a federal policy choice onto the states without federal oversight or enforcement. This diminishes political accountability by forcing state officials to bear public disapproval for a policy dictated by federal officials, which is a core concern of the anti-commandeering doctrine.
Analysis:
This decision narrowly interpreted the anti-commandeering doctrine, establishing that a direct federal prohibition on state legislative action does not constitute commandeering so long as it does not compel affirmative state action. By classifying PASPA as a valid preemption rather than an unconstitutional command, the court reinforced Congress's power to restrict state policy choices in areas of federal authority. The ruling solidified the distinction between permissible negative prohibitions and impermissible affirmative mandates, providing a clear, albeit controversial, framework for future federalism challenges. Although later overturned by the Supreme Court, this opinion represented a significant endorsement of federal power to dictate the boundaries of state lawmaking.
