Case: 25-7516, 01/30/2026, DktEntry: 49.2, Page 29 of 41
85 (2018) (holding that PASPA prohibited states from authorizing sports betting and therefore violated the anticommandeering rule, which specifically protects state sovereignty for matters over which states traditionally regulate, such as gaming and sports betting, against unlawful acts from Congress demanding states act in particular ways); see also Artichoke Joe’s , 353 F.3d at 737 (“The circuits that have given significant attention to equal protection challenges to state gambling laws have, by and large, held ‘the regulation of gambling lies at the heart of the state’s police power.’” (quoting Helton v. Hunt , 330 F.3d 242, 246 (4th Cir. 2003))). As the Supreme Court noted in Murphy , Congress has long structured federal criminal law to “respect the policy choices of the people of each State on the controversial issue of gambling.” 584 U.S. at 484; see, e.g. , 18 U.S.C. §§ 1084, 1166, 1952, 1953, 1955 (incorporating state gambling prohibitions); Chicken Ranch , 42 F.4th at 1032 (explaining that IGRA “strike[s] a delicate balance” between tribal and state sovereignty over gaming). And even when Congress chose to prohibit sports betting nationally through PASPA, it did so through state regulation, rather than by directly regulating private actors. See Murphy , 584 U.S. at 484–85. Similarly, courts have long recognized tribes’ inherent sovereign authority to regulate gaming on their lands. See Cabazon , 480 U.S. at 207–14. Though IGRA imposes limited restrictions on this authority, IGRA still broadly advances tribes’
22
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs