Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/17pdf/16-476_dbfi.pdf
Page Number: 46.0

2 

MURPHY v. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSN. 

GINSBURG, J., dissenting 

regulatory  action  by  prohibiting  the  States  from  “author-
iz[ing]”  and  “licens[ing]”  sports-gambling  schemes,  28 
U. S. C. §3702(1), two federal edicts should remain intact.  
First,  PASPA  bans  States  themselves  (or  their  agencies) 
from  “sponsor[ing],  operat[ing],  advertis[ing],  [or]  pro-
mot[ing]” sports-gambling schemes.  Ibid.  Second, PASPA 
stops  private  parties  from  “sponsor[ing],  operat[ing],  ad-
vertis[ing],  or  promot[ing]”  sports-gambling  schemes  if 
state law authorizes them to do so.  §3702(2).1  Nothing in 
these §3702(1) and §3702(2) prohibitions commands States 
to do anything other than desist from conduct federal law 
proscribes.2    Nor  is  there  any  doubt  that  Congress  has 
power to regulate gambling on a nationwide basis, author-
ity Congress exercised in PASPA.  See Gonzales v. Raich, 
545  U. S.  1,  17  (2005)  (“Our  case  law  firmly  establishes 
Congress’ power to regulate purely local activities that are 
part  of  an  economic  ‘class  of  activities’  that  have  a  sub-
stantial effect on interstate commerce.”). 
  Surely, the accountability concern that gave birth to the 
anticommandeering  doctrine  is  not  implicated  in  any 
federal proscription other than the bans on States’ author-
izing and licensing sports-gambling schemes.  The concern 
triggering  the  doctrine  arises  only  “where  the  Federal 
Government  compels  States  to  regulate”  or  to  enforce 
federal  law,  thereby  creating  the  appearance  that  state 
officials  are  responsible  for  policies  Congress  forced  them 
to  enact.    New  York  v.  United  States,  505  U. S.  144,  168 
(1992).    If  States  themselves  and  private  parties  may  not 

—————— 

1

 PASPA was not designed to eliminate any and all sports gambling.  
The  statute  targets  sports-gambling  schemes,  i.e.,  organized  markets 
for  sports  gambling,  whether  operated  by  a  State  or  by  a  third  party 
under state authorization. 

2

 In  lieu  of  a  flat  ban,  PASPA  prohibits  third  parties  from  operating 
sports-gambling  schemes  only  if  state  law  permits  them  to  do  so.    If 
a  state  ban  is  in  place,  of  course,  there  is  no  need  for  a  federal 
proscription.