On May 14, 2018, the United States Supreme Court struck down the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (PASPA), a federal law that prohibited states from legalizing sports betting. The ruling was a landmark decision that opened the door for states to regulate and tax sports betting, a multi-billion dollar industry that had long operated in the shadows.

As we approach the fifth anniversary of the PASPA ruling, it’s worth examining the near miss that almost prevented it from happening. In 2012, the state of New Jersey passed a law that would have allowed sports betting at its casinos and racetracks. The major sports leagues, including the NFL, NBA, MLB, NHL, and NCAA, sued to block the law, arguing that it violated PASPA.

The case wound its way through the courts for years, with New Jersey losing at every turn. But in 2017, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case, and in May of the following year, it issued its ruling. The court found that PASPA violated the Tenth Amendment, which reserves powers not delegated to the federal government to the states.

The ruling was a victory for New Jersey and other states that had been pushing for legalized sports betting. But it was also a near miss, as the court’s decision was far from unanimous. The vote was 6-3, with Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor dissenting.

Roberts wrote in his dissenting opinion that “Congress can regulate sports gambling directly, but if it elects not to do so, each State is free to act on its own.” He argued that PASPA did not prevent states from legalizing sports betting, but rather prohibited them from authorizing it.

Breyer and Sotomayor echoed Roberts’ concerns about states’ rights and federalism. They argued that PASPA did not infringe on states’ sovereignty, but rather protected it by preventing a patchwork of state laws that could lead to corruption and harm to the integrity of sports.

The dissenting opinions in the PASPA case highlight the ongoing debate over the proper balance between federal and state authority. While the Supreme Court ultimately sided with New Jersey and the other states that had challenged PASPA, the ruling was not a slam dunk. It took a narrow majority to strike down the law, and there were legitimate concerns raised about the potential consequences of allowing states to regulate sports betting.

Five years after the PASPA ruling, it’s clear that those concerns were largely unfounded. The states that have legalized sports betting have done so responsibly, with robust regulatory frameworks that protect consumers and ensure the integrity of sports. The industry has generated billions in revenue and created thousands of jobs, providing a much-needed boost to state budgets and local economies.

But the near miss of the PASPA ruling serves as a reminder that the balance between federal and state authority is always in flux. As new issues arise and old ones are revisited, the courts will continue to grapple with questions of federalism and states’ rights. And as we look back on the fifth anniversary of the PASPA ruling, we can appreciate both the significance of the decision and the fragility of the principles it embodies.