Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/17pdf/16-476_dbfi.pdf
Page Number: 12

8 

MURPHY v. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSN. 

Opinion of the Court 

part.”  Brief for United States in Opposition in Christie v. 
National Collegiate Athletic Assn., O. T. 2013, No. 13–967 
etc., p. 11.  See also Brief for Respondents in Opposition in 
No.  13–967  etc.,  p. 23  (“Nothing  in  that  unambiguous
language compels states to prohibit or maintain any exist­
ing  prohibition  on  sports  gambling”).    We  denied  review. 
Christie v. National Collegiate Athletic Assn., 573 U. S. ___ 
(2014).

Picking up on the suggestion that a partial repeal would 
be  allowed,  the  New  Jersey  Legislature  enacted  the  law 
now  before  us.  2014  N. J.  Laws  p. 602  (2014  Act).    The 
2014 Act declares that it is not to be interpreted as caus­
ing the State to authorize, license, sponsor, operate, adver­
tise,  or  promote  sports  gambling. 
framed  as  a  repealer.    Specifically,  it  repeals  the  provi­
sions  of  state  law  prohibiting  sports  gambling  insofar  as
they concerned the “placement and acceptance of wagers”
on sporting events by persons 21 years of age or older at a
horseracing track or a casino or gambling house in Atlan­
tic City.  Ibid.  The new law also specified that the repeal
was  effective  only  as  to  wagers  on  sporting  events  not 
involving  a  New  Jersey  college  team  or  a  collegiate  event 
taking place in the State.  Ibid. 

Ibid.    Instead,  it  is  

Predictably,  the  same  plaintiffs  promptly  commenced  a 
new  action  in  federal  court.  They  won  in  the  District
Court,  National  Collegiate  Athletic  Assn.  v.  Christie,  61 
F. Supp. 3d  488  (NJ  2014),  and  the  case  was  eventually 
heard  by  the  Third  Circuit  sitting  en  banc.   The  en  banc 
court affirmed, finding that the new law, no less than the 
old  one,  violated  PASPA  by  “author[izing]”  sports  gam­
bling.  National  Collegiate  Athletic  Assn.  v.  Governor  of 
N. J.,  832  F. 3d  389  (2016)  (case  below).    The  court  was 
unmoved  by  the  New  Jersey  Legislature’s  “artful[]”  at­
tempt  to  frame  the  2014  Act  as  a  repealer.    Id.,  at  397. 
Looking  at  what  the  law  “actually  does,”  the  court  con­
cluded  that  it  constitutes  an  authorization  because  it