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.

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]