Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/17pdf/16-476_dbfi.pdf
Page Number: 17.0

Cite as:  584 U. S. ____ (2018) 

13 

Opinion of the Court 

plies to all “governmental entities.”  It is implausible, the
United States submits, to think that Congress “commanded
every  county,  district,  and  municipality  in  the  Nation  to 
prohibit  sports  betting.”  Ibid.    But  in  making  this  argu­
ment, the United States again ignores the legal landscape
at  the  time  of  PASPA’s  enactment.  At  that  time,  sports 
gambling  was  generally  prohibited  by  state  law,  and
therefore a State’s political subdivisions were powerless to
legalize  the  activity.  But  what  if  a  State  enacted  a  law 
enabling, but not requiring, one or more of its subdivisions
to  decide  whether  to  authorize  sports  gambling?    Such 
a  state  law  would  not  itself  authorize  sports  gambling. 
The  ban  on  legalization  at  the  local  level  addresses  this
problem.

The  interpretation  adopted  by  the  Third  Circuit  and
advocated  by  respondents  and  the  United  States  not  only
ignores the situation that Congress faced when it enacted 
PASPA  but  also  leads  to  results  that  Congress  is  most
unlikely  to  have  wanted.  This  is  illustrated  by  the  im­
plausible conclusions that all of those favoring alternative 
interpretations have been forced to reach about the extent
to which the provision permits the repeal of laws banning 
sports gambling. 

The  Third  Circuit  could  not  say  which,  if  any,  partial
repeals are allowed.  832 F. 3d, at 402.  Respondents and
the  United  States  tell  us  that  the  PASPA  ban  on  state 
authorization  allows  complete  repeals,  but  beyond  that
they identify no clear line.  It is improbable that Congress
meant to enact such a nebulous regime. 

C 

The  respondents  and  United  States  argue  that  even  if 

there  is  some  doubt  about  the  correctness  of  their  inter­
pretation  of  the  anti-authorization  provision,  that  inter­
pretation  should  be  adopted  in  order  to  avoid  any  anti-
commandeering  problem  that  would  arise  if  the  provision