The Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act’s provisions prohibiting state authorization of sports gambling schemes violate the anti-commandeering rule of the Tenth Amendment.

E403283

The Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act’s provisions prohibiting state authorization of sports gambling schemes are federal statutory rules that were struck down by the Supreme Court for unconstitutionally commandeering state legislatures in violation of the Tenth Amendment.

All labels observed (2)

How this entity was disambiguated

Statements (36)

Predicate Object
instanceOf United States Supreme Court holding ⓘ
constitutional law principle ⓘ
addressesIssue division of authority between federal and state governments ⓘ
federalism ⓘ
state regulation of sports betting ⓘ
appliesTo state authorization of sports gambling schemes ⓘ
state operation of sports gambling schemes ⓘ
appliesToStatute Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act ⓘ
basedOnConstitutionalProvision Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution ⓘ
challengedBy State of New Jersey ⓘ
clarifies limits on congressional power under the Commerce Clause when regulating states directly ⓘ
that Congress may regulate private actors directly but may not require states to regulate or refrain from regulating ⓘ
decidedInCase Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Association ⓘ
decisionDate 2018-05-14 ⓘ
formerCaseName Christie v. National Collegiate Athletic Association ⓘ
heldByCourt Supreme Court of the United States ⓘ
impact enabled states to legalize and regulate sports betting ⓘ
expanded scope of the anti-commandeering doctrine in modern federalism jurisprudence ⓘ
legalEffect invalidated key provisions of the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act ⓘ
prohibited Congress from dictating whether states may authorize sports gambling ⓘ
majorityOpinionBy Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. ⓘ
linked to: Samuel A. Alito Jr.
opposedBy Major League Baseball ⓘ
National Basketball Association ⓘ
National Collegiate Athletic Association ⓘ
National Football League ⓘ
National Hockey League ⓘ
reasoning Congress cannot issue direct orders to state legislatures ⓘ
federal government may not commandeer state legislatures to maintain prohibitions on sports gambling ⓘ
provisions telling states they may not authorize sports gambling are equivalent to direct commands to state legislatures ⓘ
relatedPrecedent New York v. United States (1992) ⓘ
Printz v. United States (1997) ⓘ
relatesToDoctrine anti-commandeering doctrine ⓘ
shortName PAPSA anti-commandeering holding ⓘ
SupremeCourtDocketNumber No. 16-476 ⓘ
UnitedStatesReportsCitation 584 U.S. ___ ⓘ
voteSplit 7-2 on anti-commandeering holding ⓘ

How these facts were elicited

Referenced by (2)

Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.

Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Association → holding → The Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act’s provisions prohibiting state authorization of sports gambling schemes violate the anti-commandeering rule of the Tenth Amendment. ⓘ
Christie v. National Collegiate Athletic Association → legalClaim → PASPA violated the Tenth Amendment by dictating what state legislatures may and may not do ⓘ
linked to: The Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act’s provisions prohibiting state authorization of sports gambling schemes violate the anti-commandeering rule of the Tenth Amendment.