28 U.S.C. § 3702

Unlawful sports gambling

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 28 CasesGoogle Scholar
It shall be unlawful for—(1) a governmental entity to sponsor, operate, advertise, promote, license, or authorize by law or compact, or(2) a person to sponsor, operate, advertise, or promote, pursuant to the law or compact of a governmental entity,a lottery, sweepstakes, or other betting, gambling, or wagering scheme based, directly or indirectly (through the use of geographical references or otherwise), on one or more competitive games in which amateur or professional athletes participate, or are intended to participate, or on one or more performances of such athletes in such games.(Added Pub. L. 102–559, § 2(a), Oct. 28, 1992, 106 Stat. 4228.)Editorial NotesConstitutionality

For information regarding constitutionality of par. (1) of this section, as added by section 2(a) of Pub. L. 102–559, see note under section 3701 of this title.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date

Section effective Jan. 1, 1993, see section 3 of Pub. L. 102–559, set out as a note under section 3701 of this title.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 22 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 2009–2024 · leading case: Nat'l Collegiate Athletic Ass'n v. Governor of New Jersey, 730 F.3d 208 (3rd Cir. 2013).
Nat'l Collegiate Athletic Ass'n v. Governor of New Jersey, 730 F.3d 208 (3rd Cir. 2013). · cites it 22× “28 U.S.C. § 3702 . The prohibition on private persons is limited to any such activity conducted “pursuant to the law or compact of a governmental entity,” id.”
Murphy v. Nat'l Collegiate Athletic Assn., 138 S. Ct. 1461 (2018). · cites it 6× “on” competitive sporting events, 28 U. S. C. §3702 (1), and for “a person to sponsor, operate, advertise, or promote” those same gam- bling schemes if done “pursuant to the law or compact of a govern- mental entity,” §3702(2).”
Nat'l Collegiate Athletic Ass'n v. Governor of New Jersey, 832 F.3d 389 (3rd Cir. 2016). · cites it 14× “28 U.S.C. § 3702 (emphasis added). PASPA defines “governmental entity” to include states and their political subdivisions.”
Nat'l Collegiate Athletic Ass'n v. Governor of New Jersey, 799 F.3d 259 (3rd Cir. 2015). · cites it 6× “28 U.S.C. § 3702 (emphasis added). PASPA defines “governmental entity” to include states and their political subdivisions.”
Brackeen v. Haaland, 994 F.3d 249 (5th Cir. 2021). “at 1470 (analyzing only the component of the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act, 28 U.S.C. § 3702 (1), that prohibits states from “authoriz[ing] by law” sports betting); Printz, 521 U.”
Lange v. Martin, 2016 Ark. 337 (Ark. 2016). · cites it 2× “28 U.S.C.A. § 3702 (Westlaw through P.L. 114-222).”
OFC Comm Baseball v. Markell, 579 F.3d 293 (3rd Cir. 2009). · cites it 2× “28 U.S.C. § 3702 . The statute contains four exceptions, only one of which is relevant here.”
Nat'l Collegiate Athletic Ass'n v. Christie, 61 F. Supp. 3d 488 (D.N.J. 2014). · cites it 4× “28 U.S.C. § 3702 . PASPA includes a grandfather clause, which exempts states with preexisting sports wagering laws.”
State of Texas v. USA, 945 F.3d 355 (5th Cir. 2019). “at 1481–84 (considering whether part of 28 U.S.C. § 3702 (1) could be severed from §§ 3701–04).”
City of Phila. v. Sessions, 309 F. Supp. 3d 289 (E.D. Pa. 2018). “28 U.S.C. § 3702 (1). 8 Prior to enacting the law at issue in Murphy , in 2012, New Jersey passed a new law authorizing sports gambling, 2011 N.”
NCAA v. Governor of New Jersey, 939 F.3d 597 (3rd Cir. 2019). “28 U.S.C. § 3702 (emphasis added). At that time and for the following nineteen years, New Jersey law paralleled PASPA, 4 prohibiting sports gambling by its Constitution and by statute.”
State of New York v. U.S. Dep't of Just., 964 F.3d 150 (2d Cir. 2020). “While PASPA sought to accomplish this goal by providing that states could not “sponsor, operate, advertise, promote, license, or authorize by law or compact” sports betting, 28 U.S.C. § 3702 (1), Section 1373 13 attempts to do so by stripping from state governments the right to…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.