Betting the House: How Murphy v. NCAA Opened the Floodgates for Sports Betting Scandals
Madison Puritz
When the Supreme Court struck down the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (PASPA) in Murphy v. NCAA on May 14, 2018, eliminating the federal ban on sports betting, it opened the door for the emergence of the NBA’s most recent gambling scandal.[1] On October 23rd of this year, Portland Trail Blazers coach Chauncey Billups, Miami Heat guard Terry Rozier, and former Cleveland Cavaliers player and assistant coach Damon Jones were just three notable names amidst the thirty-four individuals who were arrested for taking part in illegal sports betting and rigged poker games backed by the Mafia.[2] Rozier has been accused of using and exchanging insider NBA information to place bets, receive payments, or receive a share of profits from other bettors on at least seven NBA games between March 2023 and March 2024.[3] In three of those games, players reportedly withdrew themselves from play to help ensure the gamblers’ bets would pay off.[4] In the aftermath of this scandal, growing concerns and debates over the expanding legalization of sports betting have become increasingly urgent.[5]
Prior to Murphy, PASPA was controlling law when it came to sports betting.[6] PASPA made it illegal for states to sponsor, run, advertise, promote, license, or approve any form of sports betting based on competitive games.[7] The same restrictions applied to individuals, who were also barred from engaging in or promoting these activities.[8] However, four states: Nevada, Delaware, Montana, and Oregon, were exempt because they already had sports betting programs in place when the law was enacted, leaving all other states unable to legalize sports betting.[9] Justice Alito, writing for the majority, overturned PAPSA in Murphy, claiming it violated the Constitution's anti-commandeering rule.[10] The anti-commandeering doctrine, encompassed in the 10th Amendment states that, “the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”[11] This left the decision of whether to legalize sports betting open to each state and, since PASPA was overturned, thirty-four additional states, Washington, D.C., and Puerto Rico have legalized sports betting in some form.[12]
When the Murphy ruling first came out, sports agents across the industry warned of the likely consequences that would ensue from the decision, and their fears have proven to be legitimate.[13] The widespread legalization of sports betting has increased the temptation for athletes to influence game outcomes to benefit certain bets, particularly with the growing popularity of “prop” bets.[14] Prop bets center on an individual athlete’s performance, letting fans wager on specific outcomes, such as who scores the first touchdown or how many rebounds a player records.[15]
The recent NBA gambling scandal underscores how the expansion of legalized sports betting can create new opportunities for misconduct, even among high-profile athletes. As more states legalize sports betting, the pressure to protect game integrity grows, highlighting the need for stricter oversight, ethical vigilance, and ongoing education about the risks posed by insider information and prop bets[LG1] . Recognizing these challenges, the NBA has taken concrete steps to address them: it has dedicated additional staff and resources to its Sports Betting Integrity Unit, tasked internal analysts with reviewing data from authorized betting operators to identify anomalous wagers, and circulated electronic surveys and memos to educate players on, and test their understanding of, the league’s current gaming policies.[16] While these measures are a good first step, truly meaningful reform would start by banning bets on specific player-related outcomes.[17] It would also create an independent integrity body with access to comprehensive betting data, provide funding for problem-gambling prevention, and implement better security and mental health support for players who face online harassment from bettors.[18] However, expecting such action from a profit-driven corporation, such as the NBA, that prioritizes public image over principle will likely prove challenging if not impossible.[19]
[1] Murphy v. NCAA, 584 U.S. 453 (2018).
[2] David Purdum, Chauncey Billups, Terry Rozier Arrested in Gambling Inquiries, ESPN (Oct. 23, 2025), https://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/46695228/sources-terry-rozier-arrested-part-gambling-inquiry.
[3] Id.
[4] Id.
[5] Thompson, Scott, NBA Gambling Scandal Shows Legal Sports Betting Market Works, Fanatics Betting & Gaming CEO Argues, FOX News (Oct. 29, 2025), https://www.foxnews.com/sports/nba-gambling-scandal-shows-legal-sports-betting-market-works-fanatics-betting-gaming-ceo-argues.
[6] Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act of 1992, Pub. L. No. 102-559, 106 Stat. 4227 (1992).
[7] 28 U.S.C. § 3701
[8] Id.
[9] Id.
[10] Murphy, 584 U.S. at 455.
[11] U.S. Const. amend. X.
[12] Matthew Waters, Sports Betting States: Latest US Legislation & Bill Tracker, Legal Sports Rep. (Jul. 23, 2025), https://www.legalsportsreport.com/sports-betting-states/
[13] Danny Funt, The Sports-Betting Disaster, The New Yorker (Oct. 28, 2025), https://www.newyorker.com/news/the-lede/the-sports-betting-disaster.
[14] Id.
[15] Id.
[16] Chris Mannix, How the League Went on Defense, Sports Illustrated (Aug. 9, 2021), https://www.si.com/betting/2021/08/09/gambling-issue-the-leagues.
[17] Lee Escobedo, The NBA jumped into bed with gambling. Now the league is getting its due, The Guardian (Oct. 24, 2025), https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2025/oct/24/the-nba-jumped-into-bed-with-gambling-now-the-league-is-getting-its-due.
[18] Id.
[19] Id.
[LG1]Consider adding in a sentence or two describing existing or possible schemes for these new guidelines