Georgetown Law
Technology Review

In Missouri, sports betting is illegal. Yet if a person were to enter its bordering states of Iowa, Illinois, Kentucky, Tennessee, Arkansas, and Kansas, they would have access to unfettered sports betting at their fingertips. This lack of uniformity creates situations in which individuals in one state are subject to a completely different set of rules and protections than those just across the border, allowing people to exploit these discrepancies in the law. This problem is not unique to the listed set of states, but is ubiquitous across the United States due to inconsistencies in sports betting laws. Regardless of one’s stance on sports betting, it is clear that the status quo cannot hold because of the ambiguity that the discrepancies present for consumers and the difficulty they pose for achieving a cohesive and safe national market.

Irrespective of whether sports betting is legalized nationally or not, the United States government needs a clear and unified stance. An overarching federal guideline is preferable to the inconsistent regulations that currently exist because it would streamline the legal framework, better clarifying legality status to consumers, and permit businesses to operate within clearly defined boundaries.

The Current State of Sports Betting

In 2018, the Supreme Court reached a landmark ruling in Murphy v. NCAA, which placed jurisdiction over legalized sports betting into the hands of state governments rather than the federal government. This case overturned the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (“PASPA”), a 1992 congressional act that prohibited states from legalizing sports gambling. Justice Alito’s majority opinion in Murphy offered three key reasons why sports betting belongs in the states’ jurisdiction rather than the federal government’s: (1) to curb the federal government’s power, (2) to foster greater political accountability to the state governments, and (3) to prevent a scenario where Congress is not held responsible for the financial consequences of its decisions. In contrast, Justice Ginsburg’s dissenting opinion in Murphy contended that the unconstitutional facets of PAPSA could be severed from the rest of the law, thus allowing a federal prohibition to remain in place. A crucial part of Ginsburg’s argument centered around a 2005 case Gonzales v. Raich, which established that Congress has the authority “to regulate purely local activities that are part of an economic ‘class of activities’ that have a substantial effect on interstate commerce.”

In the aftermath of Murphy, as of March 2024, 38 states and Washington D.C. have legalized sports betting in some capacity. Of those states, nine (Delaware, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Dakota, South Dakota, Washington, and Wisconsin) have limited sports betting to brick-and-mortar establishments and consequently do not allow people to bet on mobile devices. Currently, there are four states (Alabama, Georgia, Minnesota, and Missouri) that prohibit sports betting but are considering legalizing it in 2025. Further, there are eight states (Alaska, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Texas) where sports betting is illegal and has not gained any significant momentum towards legalization.

As a consequence of the legalization of sports betting throughout state legislatures, many mobile sports betting apps have provided an ease of access to gambling that has resulted in a sharp increase in usage. This online format allows individuals to place bets at a speed and ease that had not been previously available. Specifically, among young sports bettors, TV and online advertisements have helped normalize excessive sports betting. The ramifications of such behavior can be dire, including causing someone to face a burdening amount of debt, hurting personal and familial relationships, and ruining  academic or career goals.

Sports Betting as a Power of the Federal Government

While the majority opinion in Murphy might have been applicable prior to the explosion of sports betting, new developments in mass legalized sports betting have disproven much of Alito’s reasoning. The inconsistencies in sports betting laws highlight the difficulty of containing the effects of gambling within states’ borders. Online platforms and mobile betting blur geographical lines, making interstate implications more pronounced. For example, virtual private networks (VPNs) allow a person to spoof their location, creating the illusion they are located in a state that permits sports betting. This technological workaround exemplifies how the current state-by-state regulatory framework struggles to address the realities of the digital age, where physical boundaries are easily circumvented. Such practices not only challenge the efficacy of state-specific gambling laws but also raise concerns about the enforcement of gambling regulations, the prevention of underage gambling, and the deterrence of fraud and addiction. The ease with which individuals can engage in sports betting across state lines via the Internet demonstrates the necessity for a unified regulatory approach that can effectively manage and oversee sports betting nationally.

Looking Ahead

Until the Supreme Court overturns its decision in Murphy, Congress faces significant challenges in passing legislation that could mitigate the inconsistencies created by divergent state laws on sports betting. The majority opinion in Murphy treats sports betting too casually, overlooking its capacity to transcend state borders and the ease with which technology can exacerbate its most harmful impacts. Federal legislative action, specifically a law that directly addresses the gaps left by Murphy, could provide the necessary clarity and uniformity in regulations concerning sports betting. Even if sports betting were to remain legal, it would be better to do so under the guidance of the federal government.