Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/17pdf/16-476_dbfi.pdf
Page Number: 22.0

18  MURPHY v. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSN. 

Opinion of the Court 

See  New  York,  supra,  at  168–169;  Printz,  supra,  at  929– 
930. 

Third,  the  anticommandeering  principle  prevents  Con­
gress from shifting the costs of regulation to the States.  If 
Congress  enacts  a  law  and  requires  enforcement  by  the
Executive Branch, it must appropriate the funds needed to 
administer  the  program. 
It  is  pressured  to  weigh  the 
expected benefits of the program  against its costs.  But  if 
Congress  can  compel  the  States  to  enact  and  enforce  its 
program, Congress need not engage in any such analysis. 
See, e.g., E. Young, Two Cheers for Process Federalism, 46 
Vill. L. Rev. 1349, 1360–1361 (2001). 

IV 

A 

The  PASPA  provision  at  issue  here—prohibiting  state
authorization  of  sports  gambling—violates  the  anticom­
mandeering  rule.  That  provision  unequivocally  dictates
what a state legislature may and may not do.  And this is 
true  under  either  our  interpretation  or  that  advocated  by
respondents and the United States.  In either event, state 
legislatures  are  put  under  the  direct  control  of  Congress.
It is as if federal officers were installed in state legislative 
chambers  and  were  armed  with  the  authority  to  stop 
legislators from voting on any offending proposals.  A more 
direct affront to state sovereignty is not easy to imagine.

Neither  respondents  nor  the  United  States  contends
that Congress can compel a State to enact legislation, but 
they say that prohibiting a State from enacting new laws
is another matter.  See Brief for Respondents 19; Brief for 
United States 12.  Noting that the laws challenged in New 
York and Printz “told states what they must do instead of 
what  they  must  not  do,”  respondents  contend  that  com­
mandeering  occurs  “only  when  Congress  goes  beyond
precluding  state  action  and  affirmatively  commands  it.” 
Brief for Respondents 19 (emphasis deleted).