National Collegiate Athletic Ass'n v. Governor of New Jersey
730 F.3d 208
| 3rd Cir. | 2013Background
- New Jersey amended its constitution and enacted a Sports Wagering Law to permit state licensing of sports betting at casinos and racetracks.
- The NBA, MLB, NFL, NHL and NCAA (the "Leagues") sued under PASPA, 28 U.S.C. § 3701 et seq., seeking to enjoin New Jersey’s law as preempted by PASPA.
- PASPA generally forbids states from sponsoring, licensing, or authorizing sports gambling and gives a private right to sports organizations to enjoin violations; it contains grandfathering exemptions (notably Nevada).
- The District Court held the Leagues had Article III standing and enjoined New Jersey; the United States intervened to defend PASPA’s constitutionality.
- On appeal the Third Circuit considered standing and three constitutional challenges: (1) Commerce Clause authority; (2) Tenth Amendment/anti-commandeering; and (3) equal-sovereignty challenge to PASPA’s Nevada exemption.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing (Article III) | Leagues: their games are directly targeted; state licensing will increase wagering and cause reputational injury and increased risk of game-fixing. | New Jersey: alleged stigmatic/reputational injury is speculative and dependent on third parties. | Leagues have standing: games are effectively the object of the law and reputational harms are concrete and supported by record evidence. |
| Commerce Clause (scope) | New Jersey: (some) intrastate bets are non‑economic local activity not regulable by Congress. | Leagues/US: sports and wagering are economic and substantially affect interstate commerce; Congress may regulate and prohibit state-licensed wagering. | PASPA is within Commerce Clause: gambling and national sports are economic and affect interstate commerce; federal regulation is rationally related. |
| Anti-commandeering / Tenth Amendment | New Jersey: PASPA commandeers states by dictating how states regulate (forbids licensing) and effectively forces them to keep bans. | Leagues/US: PASPA is a preemptive prohibition operating under the Supremacy Clause, not a command requiring state officials to enact or administer federal programs. | PASPA does not commandeer: it prohibits state action (preemption), does not compel states to perform federal administrative tasks, and resembles prior upheld prohibitions (Baker, Reno). |
| Equal sovereignty / grandfathering | New Jersey: PASPA’s exemption for Nevada discriminates among states and violates equal‑sovereignty principles. | Leagues/US: equal‑sovereignty concerns arise mainly in the VRA context; Congress can treat states differently under the Commerce Clause and grandfathering is justified by PASPA’s purpose. | PASPA does not violate equal sovereignty: the exemption is rationally related to Congress’ purpose and the Commerce Clause does not demand geographic uniformity. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005) (Congress may regulate purely local economic activity when, in the aggregate, it substantially affects interstate commerce)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (standing requires concrete, particularized injury and proof at summary judgment)
- Meese v. Keene, 481 U.S. 465 (1987) (reputational/informational injury can confer standing)
- New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992) (Congress may not commandeer states by compelling them to enact or enforce federal programs)
- Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997) (Congress cannot conscript state officers to administer federal regulatory schemes)
- Reno v. Condon, 528 U.S. 141 (2000) (federal law prohibiting state conduct as part of generally applicable regulation upheld; not every federal restriction on state action violates anti-commandeering)
- Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942) (aggregate effect doctrine for Commerce Clause)
- Office of Commissioner of Baseball v. Markell, 579 F.3d 293 (3d Cir. 2009) (interpretation of PASPA grandfathering language)