National Collegiate Athletic Ass'n v. Christie
61 F. Supp. 3d 488
D.N.J.2014Background
- In 1992 Congress enacted PASPA, 28 U.S.C. §§ 3701–3704, prohibiting states from authorizing or licensing sports wagering and creating a narrow grandfathering/one-year window for some states.
- New Jersey voters approved a 2011 constitutional amendment; the Legislature enacted a 2012 statute (the 2012 Law) authorizing gambling at casinos/racetracks; courts held PASPA preempted that statute (Christie I).
- After the Third Circuit and U.S. Supreme Court denied further relief, New Jersey enacted the 2014 Law, which purported to "partially repeal" state prohibitions so casinos and racetracks could accept wagers (excluding certain college wagers).
- The Leagues (NCAA, NBA, NFL, NHL, MLB) sued, alleging the 2014 Law is preempted by PASPA and sought injunctive relief; the court consolidated the preliminary injunction with summary judgment.
- The central legal question: whether New Jersey’s partial repeal (2014 Law) is effectively authorization of state-sponsored sports wagering and therefore preempted by PASPA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 2014 Law is preempted by PASPA | The partial repeal functions as state authorization of sports wagering and conflicts with PASPA’s goal to ban state-sponsored schemes | The 2014 Law is a repeal (not authorization) and fits within the Third Circuit’s allowance that states may repeal prohibitions | The 2014 Law is preempted; its partial-repeal form cannot be used to accomplish what PASPA forbids |
| Scope of state options under PASPA (whether only two choices exist) | PASPA requires states to choose either to keep prohibitions or to fully deregulate; partial, state‑sanctioned schemes are barred | The Third Circuit permitted partial repeals and New Jersey’s targeted repeal is allowable | Court reads Christie I as allowing only two options (keep ban or repeal entirely); 2014 Law falls outside those options |
| Whether Eleventh Amendment or self-execution prevents suit against state officials | Leagues argue state officers can be enjoined to prevent enforcement/effect of the 2014 Law | Defendants say the law is self-executing and Eleventh Amendment bars relief because officials won’t enforce it | Eleventh Amendment does not bar the suit; injunctive relief against state defendants is appropriate to prevent effect of preempted statute |
| Supplemental state‑law claim under New Jersey Constitution | Leagues alternatively allege the 2014 Law violates New Jersey Constitution | Defendants defend validity under state law | Court dismisses state‑law claim without prejudice (declines supplemental jurisdiction) |
Key Cases Cited
- Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n v. Governor of N.J., 730 F.3d 208 (3d Cir. 2013) (analyzing PASPA’s purpose and holding federal preemption applies to New Jersey’s 2012 statute while explaining states’ options under PASPA)
- Christie v. NCAA, 926 F.Supp.2d 551 (D.N.J. 2013) (district court decision invalidating New Jersey’s 2012 statute under PASPA)
- Office of the Commissioner of Baseball v. Markell, 579 F.3d 293 (3d Cir. 2009) (consolidation precedent and approach to merits review from preliminary injunction posture)
- New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992) (anti-commandeering doctrine distinguishing federal mandates that require affirmative state action)
- Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997) (anti-commandeering principle invalidating federal requirements that compel state officials to administer federal programs)
- F.E.R.C. v. Mississippi, 456 U.S. 742 (1982) (recognizing binary choice for states: regulate under federal standard or leave field unregulated)
- Howlett v. Rose, 496 U.S. 356 (1990) (substance over form; Supreme Court caution against evasion of federal law by labeling)
- Haywood v. Drown, 556 U.S. 729 (2009) (federal preemption cannot be evaded by formalistic devices)
- Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908) (permitting injunctive suits against state officers for ongoing violations of federal law)
- Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89 (1984) (limits on federal courts entertaining pendent state-law claims against state officials)