Reactions to the decision ranged from celebrations of victory for Americans to concerns about the integrity of competition. The law made it illegal for states “to sponsor, operate, advertise, promote, license, or authorize by law or compact . . . a lottery, sweepstakes, or other betting, gambling, or wagering scheme based . . . on” sporting events.
Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the majority, said Congress has no place issuing such direct orders to the states, and pointed out the limits to its power. “The legislative powers granted to Congress are sizable, but they are not unlimited. The Constitution confers on Congress not plenary legislative power but only certain enumerated powers. Therefore, all other legislative power is reserved for the States, as the Tenth Amendment confirms,” wrote Alito in the majority opinion.
“And conspicuously absent from the list of powers given to Congress is the power to issue direct orders to the governments of the States. The anticommandeering doctrine simply represents the recognition of this limit on congressional authority.”
The Tenth Amendment Center, a Constitutional education and “nullification” activism organization, hailed the decision. It argued the Court, rightly, recognized the federal government cannot force states to use its resources to enforce federal laws. In this instance, it said, it directed state legislatures by prohibiting them from repealing a state law.
“In a nutshell, the Court has repeatedly held that the federal government cannot require states to use resources or personnel to help implement federal programs or enforce federal laws,” it wrote in response to the decision. “The principle dates all the way back to Prigg v. Pennsylvania in 1842 when Justice Joseph Story held that the federal government couldn’t require states to help enforce the federal Fugitive Slave Act of 1793. He said that it was a federal law, and the federal government ultimately had to enforce it.”
Alito said Congress can choose to regulate gambling directly, but if it chooses not to do it, states are free to act on their own. “Our job is to interpret the law Congress has enacted and decide whether it is consistent with the Constitution. PASPA is not. PASPA ‘regulate[s] state governments’ regulation’ of their citizens … The Constitution gives Congress no such power,” wrote Alito as he closed the opinion.
The American Gaming Association (AGA), which represents the U.S. casino industry, lauded the decision, calling it a “victory for the millions of Americans who seek to bet on sports in a safe and regulated manner.” The AGA said one survey showed 55% of Americans supported ending the federal ban on sports betting.
“Through smart, efficient regulation this new market will protect consumers, preserve the integrity of the games we love, empower law enforcement to fight illegal gambling, and generate new revenue for states, sporting bodies, broadcasters and many others,” it wrote in a statement.
The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), the lead entity fighting to keep sports betting limited, said it supports a federal model of legalized gambling. Also, as a result of the ruling, it has suspended its host policy, which prohibits states with legalized gambling from hosting championship events.
“Our highest priorities in any conversation about sports wagering are maintaining the integrity of competition and student-athlete well-being,” said NCAA President Mark Emmert. “Sports wagering can adversely impact student-athletes and undermine the games they play. We are committed to ensuring that laws and regulations promote a safe and fair environment for the nearly half a million students who play college athletics.”