Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Association
2018 United States Supreme Court case / From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Dear Wikiwand AI, let's keep it short by simply answering these key questions:
Can you list the top facts and stats about Murphy v. NCAA?
Summarize this article for a 10 year old
Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, No. 16-476, 584 U.S. 453 (2018) [138 S. Ct. 1461], was a United States Supreme Court case involving the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The issue was whether the U.S. federal government has the right to control state lawmaking. The State of New Jersey, represented here by Governor Philip D. Murphy, sought to have the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (PASPA) overturned, allowing state-sponsored sports betting. The case, formerly titled Christie v. National Collegiate Athletic Association until Governor Chris Christie left office, was combined with NJ Thoroughbred Horsemen v. NCAA No. 16-477.
Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Association | |
---|---|
Argued December 4, 2017 Decided May 14, 2018 | |
Full case name | Philip D. Murphy, Governor of New Jersey, et al. v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, et al. |
Docket no. | 16-476 |
Citations | 584 U.S. 453 (more) 138 S. Ct. 1461; 200 L. Ed. 2d 854 |
Case history | |
Prior | 61 F. Supp. 3d 488 (D.N.J. 2014); affirmed, 799 F.3d 259 (3d Cir. 2015); affirmed on rehearing en banc, 832 F.3d 389 (3d Cir. 2016); cert. granted, 137 S. Ct. 2327 (2017). |
Questions presented | |
Does a federal statute that prohibits modification or repeal of state-law prohibitions on private conduct impermissibly commandeer the regulatory power of States in contravention of New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992) | |
Holding | |
The provision of the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act that prohibits state authorization of schemes in sports gambling conflicts with the anticommandeering rule of the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America. | |
Court membership | |
| |
Case opinions | |
Majority | Alito, joined by Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas, Kagan, Gorsuch; Breyer (all but Part VI–B) |
Concurrence | Thomas |
Concur/dissent | Breyer |
Dissent | Ginsburg, joined by Sotomayor; Breyer (in part) |
Laws applied | |
U.S. Const. amend. X |
The pro-betting side characterized the federal government's position as commandeering, declaring federal laws that the states would have the responsibility to enforce.[1][2] The anti-betting side relied on the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution to keep PASPA in force. It has been suggested that the outcome of this case is likely to be cited in future cases involving the legalization of marijuana, where a similar state–federal question exists.[3][4]
On May 14, 2018, the Court reversed lower court findings, favoring New Jersey in deciding that PASPA violated the anticommandeering principle by a 7–2 vote, and declared the entire law unconstitutional by a 6–3 vote.