Earlier this month, in Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, the Supreme Court held that the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (PASPA) was unconstitutional because it violated the 10th Amendment “capture doctrine.” The immediate result is that New Jersey will be able to implement its legislation enacted in 2012, after a state constitutional amendment, that authorizes betting on sports events at casinos and racetracks. The decision has much broader and narrower implications, however. It reiterates a principle governing federal-state relations in areas far removed from gaming, while at the same time leaving the door open to federal regulation of sports betting by a different legislative scheme.

Before discussing the implications of Murphy, note that the case was originally captioned Christie v. National Collegiate Athletic Association. Former Gov. Christie made the decision to defend New Jersey’s sports betting legislation, knowing full well that only a decision by the United States Supreme Court would be able to overturn PASPA. He and the Division of Law share the credit for the victory with the state’s special counsel.