Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/17pdf/16-476_dbfi.pdf
Page Number: 10.0

6 

MURPHY v. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSN. 

Opinion of the Court 

effective date.  §3704(a)(3).27 

New  Jersey  did  not  take  advantage  of  this  special  op­
tion,  but  by  2011,  with  Atlantic  City  facing  stiff  competi­
tion, the State had a change of heart.  New Jersey voters
approved an amendment to the State Constitution making 
it  lawful  for  the  legislature  to  authorize  sports  gambling,
Art. IV, §7, ¶2(D), (F), and in 2012 the legislature enacted 
a law doing just that, 2011 N. J. Laws p. 1723 (2012 Act).

The  2012  Act  quickly  came  under  attack.  The  major
professional  sports  leagues  and  the  NCAA  brought  an 
action  in  federal  court  against  the  New  Jersey  Governor
and other state officials (hereinafter New Jersey), seeking 
to  enjoin  the  new  law  on  the  ground  that  it  violated 
In  response,  the  State  argued,  among  other 
PASPA. 
things,  that  PASPA  unconstitutionally  infringed  the 
State’s sovereign authority to end its sports gambling ban. 
See  National  Collegiate  Athletic  Assn.  v.  Christie,  926 
F. Supp. 2d 551, 561 (NJ 2013). 

In making this argument, the State relied primarily on 
two  cases,  New  York  v.  United  States,  505  U. S.  144 
(1992),  and  Printz  v.  United  States,  521  U. S.  898  (1997), 
in  which  we  struck  down  federal  laws  based on  what  has 
been  dubbed  the  “anticommandeering”  principle.  In  New 
York,  we  held  that  a  federal  law  unconstitutionally  or­
dered  the  State  to  regulate  in  accordance  with  federal
standards,  and  in  Printz,  we  found  that  another  federal 
statute  unconstitutionally  compelled  state  officers  to
enforce federal law. 

Relying on these cases, New Jersey argued that PASPA 
is  similarly  flawed  because  it  regulates  a  State’s  exercise 

—————— 

27 Although this provision did not specifically mention New Jersey or
Atlantic  City,  its  requirements—permitting  legalization  only  “in  a
municipality”  with  an  uninterrupted  10-year  history  of  legal  casino 
gaming—did not fit anyplace else.