PASPA

PASPA makes it unlawful for a state or its subdivisions to sponsor, operate, advertise, promote, license, or authorize sports gambling schemes. It also bars private persons from sponsoring or promoting such schemes when they are authorized by state law. The statute does not itself criminalize sports gambling as a federal offense.

The Court held that PASPA violated the anti-commandeering doctrine because its prohibition on state authorization targeted state legislative action rather than regulating private conduct. Congress may not issue direct orders to state legislatures dictating what they may or may not do. The anti-commandeering rule applies to directives aimed at both state executive officers and state legislatures.

PASPA contains a separate provision making it unlawful for any person to sponsor, operate, advertise, or promote a sports gambling scheme if the scheme is authorized by state law. This provision addresses private conduct but was not sufficient to save the statute once the Court determined that the core prohibition on state authorization commandeered state legislative processes.

In NCAA v. Christie, the district court and Third Circuit upheld PASPA against constitutional challenge and enjoined New Jersey’s 2014 repeal law as preempted. The courts treated the repeal as an attempt to authorize sports wagering that PASPA forbade states from undertaking.