Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/17pdf/16-476_dbfi.pdf
Page Number: 8.0

4 

MURPHY v. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSN. 

Opinion of the Court 

sports  gambling,  professional  sports  leagues  and  the
National  Collegiate  Athletic  Association  (NCAA)  long 
opposed legalization.18 

B 

By  the  1990s,  there  were  signs  that  the  trend  that  had 
brought  about  the  legalization  of  many  other  forms  of 
gambling  might  extend  to  sports  gambling,19  and  this 
sparked  federal  efforts  to  stem  the  tide.    Opponents  of
sports  gambling  turned  to  the  legislation  now  before  us,
the  Professional  and  Amateur  Sports  Protection  Act
(PASPA).  28  U. S. C.  §3701  et seq.  PASPA’s  proponents
argued that it would protect young people, and one of the
bill’s  sponsors,  Senator  Bill  Bradley  of  New  Jersey,  a 
former  college  and  professional  basketball  star,  stressed 
that  the  law  was  needed  to  safeguard  the  integrity  of 
sports.20  The Department of Justice opposed the bill,21 but 
it was passed and signed into law.

PASPA’s  most  important  provision,  part  of  which  is
directly  at  issue  in  these  cases,  makes  it  “unlawful”  for  a
State  or  any  of  its  subdivisions22  “to  sponsor,  operate, 

—————— 

the 1919 World Series 5, 198–199 (1963).  And in the early 1950s, the 
Nation  was  shocked  when  several  college  basketball  players  were 
convicted  for  shaving  points.    S.  Cohen,  The  Game  They  Played  183– 
238  (1977).    This  scandal  is  said  to  have  nearly  killed  college  basket­
ball.    See  generally  C.  Rosen,  Scandals  of  ’51:  How  the  Gamblers
Almost Killed College Basketball (1978). 

18 See  Professional  and  Amateur  Sports  Protection,  S.  Rep.  No.  102–
248,  p. 8  (1991);  Hearing  before  the  Subcommittee  on  Patents,  Copy­
rights and Trademarks of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, 102d 
Cong.,  1st  Sess.,  21,  39,  46–47,  59–60,  227  (1991)  (S.  Hrg.  102–499)
(statements by representatives of major sports leagues opposing sports
gambling). 

19 S. Rep. No. 102–248, at 5. 
20 S. Hrg. 102–499, at 10–14. 
21 App. to Pet. for Cert. in No. 16–476, p. 225a. 
22 The statute applies to any “governmental entity,” which is defined