Gamblers wagered a staggering $4.9 billion dollars on sporting events in Las Vegas last year. In a recent survey, a majority of the American public stated that sports gambling should be legalized. These trends show a clear rise in the popularity of sports gambling, yet many do not realize that gambling substantially contributes to a disproportionate decrease in the liberty of vulnerable populations. Extensive research has shown that problem gambling is directly linked to income and geography. It is evident from this research that there are a variety of issues of inequality that could expand as a result of state-sponsored sports gambling.

In Murphy v. NCAA, the Supreme Court held that the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (“PASPA”) §3702, which prevents States from “licens[ing]” and “authoriz[ing]” sports gambling schemes, violated the anti-commandeering doctrine. The anti-commandeering doctrine is the principle that the federal government cannot require states or state officials to adopt or enforce federal law. Congress cannot issue direct orders to the governments of the States because it is not an enumerated power within the Constitution. The Court declared the entire statutory scheme unconstitutional based on this violation in §3702. The Court’s opinion reinvigorated the proponents of the anti-commandeering doctrine and drove a wedge between federal and state law.

Murphy v. NCAA highlights the stark conflict between federalism principles and the harmful effects of legalized sports gambling. Analysis and refinement of anti-commandeering is crucial because the doctrine will affect future jurisprudence of hot-button issues. This Article argues that the Supreme Court’s strict adherence to the anti-commandeering doctrine—without taking into account the perverse effects on the personal liberty of underprivileged United States citizens—is unrealistic in today’s jurisprudence.

Part I (A) of this Article outlines the Supreme Court’s creation and usage of the anti-commandeering doctrine over the last three decades. Part I (B) outlines the background of PASPA and its demise in Murphy v. NCAA, as well as a historical account of sports gambling in the United States. Part II (A) examines the reasons the Supreme Court struck down § 3702 of PASPA and the variety of effects it will have on the poorest in society. Next, Part II (B) psychological aspects of gambling and (C) the state budgetary incentives in the sports gambling context will be analyzed. Lastly, (D) potential future anti-commandeering contexts will be explored, and most importantly (E) judicial solutions to combat the current inequitable balancing of federalism and policy interests will be outlined. Unpacking the case study of PASPA highlights that, when interpreting anti-commandeering issues, the Supreme Court should realistically counter-balance policy issues against a strict and expansive adherence to the doctrine in order to protect the liberty of the most vulnerable in society.