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

United States Supreme Court holding constitutional law principle

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.

Try in SPARQL Jump to: Surface forms Statements Referenced by

All labels observed (2)

Label	Occurrences
PASPA violated the Tenth Amendment by dictating what state legislatures may and may not do	1
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. canonical	1

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	New Jersey, United States ⓘ surface form: 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 (2018) ⓘ surface form: 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	Samuel A. Alito Jr. ⓘ surface form: Justice 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 ⓘ surface form: 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 ⓘ

Referenced by (2)

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

Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Association (2018) → 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. ⓘ

subject surface form: Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Association

Christie v. National Collegiate Athletic Association → legalClaim → 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. ⓘ

this entity surface form: PASPA violated the Tenth Amendment by dictating what state legislatures may and may not do