Murphy v. NCAA and PASPA: What the Supreme Court Decided

The Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (PASPA) was a 1992 federal law that barred states from authorizing sports betting, and the U.S. Supreme Court struck it down in Murphy v. NCAA on May 14, 2018. As of October 2026, PASPA no longer prevents any state from legalizing sports betting, and the Court’s reasoning explains why the question now belongs to each state rather than to Congress. The decision did not make sports betting legal on its own. It removed a federal barrier, and what followed was a patchwork of state laws.

This article explains what PASPA said, how New Jersey challenged it, what the Supreme Court held and why, and what the ruling did and did not change. It also notes where federal proposals stand as of October 2026 and clears up common misunderstandings. The goal is to describe the law as written and decided, not to say what anyone may or may not do in a particular state.

What Is PASPA? The 1992 Law Explained

PASPA became law on October 28, 1992, as Public Law 102-559, and took effect on January 1, 1993, according to the U.S. House of Representatives’ Office of the Law Revision Counsel. It is codified at 28 U.S.C. § 3701 and following sections. Senator Bill Bradley of New Jersey was one of its sponsors, and supporters argued it would protect young people and the integrity of sports, while the Department of Justice opposed the bill, as the Supreme Court later recounted.

The core rule sits in 28 U.S.C. § 3702. It has two parts. First, it made it unlawful for a governmental entity to “sponsor, operate, advertise, promote, license, or authorize by law or compact” a betting, gambling or wagering scheme based on competitive games involving amateur or professional athletes. The second part reached private actors, but only when they acted under the law or compact of a governmental entity.

PASPA did not make sports betting itself a federal crime. Instead, enforcement was civil: the Attorney General and professional and amateur sports organizations could sue to stop violations. The law also contained exceptions. Nevada kept legal sports betting in casinos, and three other states kept sports lotteries or sports pools, so four states were grandfathered. A separate provision gave New Jersey one year to legalize sports betting in Atlantic City, an option the state did not use.

The 2018 PASPA Ruling: What the Court Held

How New Jersey challenged the law

After New Jersey voters approved a state constitutional amendment in 2011, the legislature passed a 2012 law authorizing sports betting at casinos and racetracks. The NCAA and three major professional sports leagues sued, the lower courts sided with them, and the Supreme Court declined to hear the first appeal. In 2014, New Jersey tried a different approach: a law that repealed its own prohibitions for bettors aged 21 and older at Atlantic City casinos and racetracks, excluding wagers on New Jersey college teams. The Third Circuit, sitting en banc, held that this repeal still violated PASPA, and the Supreme Court agreed to review it. The case was argued on December 4, 2017.

What the justices decided

On May 14, 2018, the Court reversed. Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the Court. Justice Stephen Breyer joined all of the opinion except Part VI-B, and Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a concurrence. The Court reached three conclusions. First, when a state repeals old laws banning sports betting, in whole or in part, it “authorizes” that activity within the meaning of PASPA. Second, because PASPA’s anti-authorization provision gives direct orders to state legislatures, it violates the anticommandeering rule, which the Court tied to the Tenth Amendment and its recognition that powers not given to Congress are reserved to the states. Third, no other part of PASPA could survive on its own, so the provisions on operating, sponsoring, promoting, licensing and advertising all fell with the rest.

The majority described the policy question as a serious one and then returned it to lawmakers: “Congress can regulate sports gambling directly, but if it elects not to do so, each State is free to act on its own.” Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissented, joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor and, in part, by Justice Breyer.

How the Ruling Applies in Practice

Murphy v. NCAA did not legalize anything by itself. It removed a federal prohibition on state authorization, which means each state now chooses whether to allow sports betting, by what route, and under what rules. States have used legislation, ballot measures and tribal-state compacts, a pattern covered in how states legalized sports betting after Murphy v. NCAA. According to a Congressional Research Service report updated July 15, 2026, 39 states and the District of Columbia have legalized state-regulated sports betting in some form.

The ruling leaves other federal laws in place. The case concerned PASPA, and the Court did not address separate statutes such as the Wire Act or the payments law UIGEA. Readers who want that background can start with what the Wire Act covers and what the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act does.

A hypothetical shows the practical effect. Suppose a state has never repealed its prohibition on sports betting. Murphy leaves that prohibition untouched, because the decision only stops Congress from forbidding states to change their laws. Sports betting in that state would remain unlawful under state law until its own lawmakers or voters changed it.

What’s Changing: Federal Proposals and Open Questions

Congress has not enacted a replacement for PASPA. The main pending proposal is the SAFE Bet Act, introduced in the House as H.R. 2087 on March 11, 2025, and referred to the Energy and Commerce and Natural Resources committees. The Congressional Research Service describes it, together with its Senate counterpart S. 1033, as a bill to create minimum federal standards for sports betting and a national self-exclusion list. A July 27, 2026 report in The Hill described efforts to pass new federal sports betting rules as stalled. The table summarizes the status as of October 2026; how bills move through a legislature is explained in how a gambling bill becomes law.

A separate dispute is still being litigated. The Congressional Research Service reports that the Commodity Futures Trading Commission asserts exclusive jurisdiction over sports event contracts on prediction market exchanges, while several states and tribes have challenged that position in court, and courts have issued differing opinions. The agency was also engaged in a rulemaking on prediction markets. This article takes no side in that dispute; it is noted here because it tests how federal and state authority over sports wagering fit together after Murphy.

Common Misconceptions About PASPA

One misconception is that PASPA made sports betting a federal crime. The Supreme Court noted that it did not; the law targeted state authorization and allowed civil suits instead.

A second is that Murphy v. NCAA legalized sports betting nationwide. The decision only struck down a federal restriction, and the status of sports betting still depends on each state’s own law.

A third is that the Court endorsed sports betting as good policy. In fact, the Court called it a policy choice that was not the judiciary’s to make, and its holding rested on the structure of federal and state power.

A fourth is that Congress can no longer act on sports betting. The majority opinion states the opposite: Congress retains the power to regulate sports gambling directly if it chooses to do so. What Congress cannot do is order state legislatures to keep their own prohibitions in place.

What This Means for Readers

Because the federal ban is gone, whether sports betting is lawful depends on the state and on the form it takes, such as in-person or online. The most reliable sources are a state legislature’s published statutes and the state’s gaming regulator. For a method of confirming that an operator holds a state license, see how to check if an online sportsbook is licensed.

Laws and court rulings on this subject continue to change, including the federal proposals and prediction-market litigation described above. Dates matter, so a status stated in any article should be read as of its stated date. Anyone with a question about their own circumstances should consult a licensed attorney in their state rather than rely on a general explainer.

Related Laws and Next Reading

Readers following this thread can move to the state level next. The legal path states took after Murphy is laid out in how states legalized sports betting after Murphy v. NCAA, which compares legislative, ballot-measure and tribal-compact routes. States have also placed limits on what can be wagered, which how states restrict college betting and player props examines. Those two articles pair naturally with this one: PASPA explains why the federal door closed and reopened, and the state-level articles show what each state did once it could act on its own.

Sources & References

• Office of the Law Revision Counsel, U.S. House of Representatives — 28 U.S.C. § 3702: Unlawful sports gambling
• Supreme Court of the United States — Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, No. 16-476 (May 14, 2018)
• Justia — Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, 584 U.S. (2018)
• Congressional Research Service — Sports Betting and Consumer Finance (IF12761, updated July 15, 2026)
• Congress.gov — H.R. 2087, SAFE Bet Act of 2025 (119th Congress)
• The Hill — Congress stalls on gambling laws (July 27, 2026)