Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/17pdf/16-476_dbfi.pdf
Page Number: 28.0

24  MURPHY v. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSN. 

Opinion of the Court 

based  on  a  federal  law  that  regulates  the  conduct  of  pri­
vate actors, not the States. 

Once  this  is  understood,  it  is  clear  that  the  PASPA 

provision  prohibiting  state  authorization  of  sports  gam­
bling  is  not  a  preemption  provision  because  there  is  no
way in which this provision can be understood as a regula­
tion  of  private  actors.    It  certainly  does  not  confer  any
federal  rights  on  private  actors  interested  in  conducting
sports  gambling  operations. 
(It  does  not  give  them  a 
federal  right  to  engage  in  sports  gambling.)    Nor  does  it 
impose  any  federal  restrictions  on  private  actors.    If  a 
private  citizen  or  company  started  a  sports  gambling
operation,  either  with  or  without  state  authorization,
§3702(1) would not be violated and would not provide any
ground  for  a  civil  action  by  the  Attorney  General  or  any
other  party.  Thus,  there  is  simply  no  way  to  understand
the  provision  prohibiting  state  authorization  as  anything 
other  than  a  direct  command  to  the  States.    And  that  is 
exactly what the anticommandeering rule does not allow.
In so holding, we recognize that a closely related provi­
sion of PASPA, §3702(2), does restrict private conduct, but
that is not the provision challenged by petitioners.  In Part 
VI–B–2,  infra,  we  consider  whether  §3702(2)  is  severable 
from the provision directly at issue in these cases. 

VI 
Having  concluded  that  §3702(1)  violates  the  anti-
commandeering  doctrine,  we  consider  two  additional 
questions:  first,  whether  the  decision  below  should  be
affirmed  on  an  alternative  ground  and,  second,  whether 
our  decision  regarding  the  anti-authorization  provision
dooms the remainder of PASPA. 

Respondents  and  the  United  States  argue  that,  even  if 
we  disagree  with  the  Third  Circuit’s  decision  regarding 

A