![handle is hein.crs/govzer0001 and id is 1 raw text is:
The Supreme Court Bets Against
Commandeering: Murphy v. NCAA, Sports
Gambling, and Federalism
May 16, 2018
The Supreme Court recently held in Murphy v. NCAA that a federal law prohibiting states from
authorizing sports gambling unconstitutionally commandeered the authority of state legislatures. In
an opinion authored by Justice Alito (and joined by six other justices in its central holding), the Court
explained that because the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act of 1992 (PASPA)
unequivocally dictates what a state legislature may and may not do with respect to sports gambling, it
impermissibly placed state legislatures under the direct control of Congress. In reaching this
conclusion, the Court rejected the argument that PASPA represented a valid exercise of Congress's power
to preempt state law, reasoning that Congress can preempt state law only in the course of directly
regulating private actors and not by directly issuing commands to state governments.
Legal Background: Preemption and Commandeering
The Supreme Court has made clear that the Constitution does not grant the federal government general
or plenary authority. Rather, the Constitution lists, or enumerates, the Federal Government's powers,
and this enumeration is also a limitation of powers, because the enumeration presupposes something not
enumerated. This principle reflects the fact that [u]pon ratification of the Constitution, the States
entered the Union 'with their sovereignty intact.' The text of the Tenth Amendment confirms this
understanding of the nation's constitutional structure, providing that [t]he powers not delegated to the
United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively,
or to the people.
While the Constitution limits the federal government's powers, it also provides that federal law may
displace (or preempt) otherwise valid, but conflicting state actions under the Supremacy Clause when
Congress is acting pursuant to its enumerated powers. The Supreme Court has long recognized that
federal law can preempt state regulation of a particular activity in whole or in part, and federal law can
also permissibly condition a state's ability to regulate an activity upon conformity with federal standards.
However, the Court has also recognized a limit on the federal government's preemption power: under the
anti-commandeering doctrine, Congress cannot directly compel the state political branches to perform
regulatory functions on the federal government's behalf The Court has explained that the anti-
Congressional Research Service
https://crsreports.congress.gov
LSB10133
CRS INSIGHT
Prepared for Members and
Committees of Congress](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.crs/govzer0001&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)
What Is HeinOnline?
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most