Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/17pdf/16-476_dbfi.pdf
Page Number: 34

30  MURPHY v. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSN. 

Opinion of the Court 

federal and state law, and that is something that Congress 
has  rarely  done.    For  example,  the  advertising  of  ciga­
rettes  is  heavily  regulated  but  not  totally  banned.    See 
Federal  Cigarette  Labeling  and  Advertising  Act,  79  Stat. 
282; Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act,
§§201–204, 123 Stat. 1842–1848. 

It is true that at one time federal law prohibited the use 

of  the  mail  or  interstate  commerce  to  distribute  adver­
tisements of lotteries that were permitted under state law,
but that is no longer the case.  See United States v. Edge 
Broadcasting Co., 509 U. S. 418, 421–423 (1993).  In 1975, 
Congress  passed  a  new  statute,  codified  at  18  U. S. C. 
§1307,  that  explicitly  exempts  print  advertisements  re­
garding  a  lottery  lawfully  conducted  by  States,  and  in 
Greater  New  Orleans  Broadcasting  Assn.,  Inc.  v.  United 
States,  527  U. S.  173,  176  (1999),  we  held  that  the  First 
Amendment  protects  the  right  of  a  radio  or  television
station  in  a  State  with  a  lottery  to  run  such  advertise­
ments.  In  light  of  these  developments,  we  do  not  think 
that  Congress  would  want  the  advertising  provisions  to
stand if the remainder of PASPA must fall. 

For  these  reasons,  we  hold  that  no  provision  of  PASPA
is  severable  from  the  provision  directly  at  issue  in  these 
cases. 

* 

* 

* 

The  legalization  of  sports  gambling  is  a  controversial 
subject.  Supporters  argue  that  legalization  will  produce 
revenue for the States and critically weaken illegal sports
betting  operations,  which  are  often  run  by  organized 
crime.  Opponents contend that legalizing sports gambling 
will  hook  the  young  on  gambling,  encourage  people  of 
modest  means  to  squander  their  savings  and  earnings,
and corrupt professional and college sports. 

The  legalization  of  sports  gambling  requires  an  im­
portant  policy  choice,  but  the  choice  is  not  ours  to  make.