## Facts

- The NCAA is a nationwide voluntary association of member colleges, conferences, and related institutions that adopts substantive athletics rules and a uniform enforcement program.
- Member institutions, including Nevada institutions, agree by contract (via the NCAA constitution and bylaws) to follow and enforce NCAA rules and enforcement procedures.
- Nevada enacted Nev. Rev. Stat. §§ 398.155–398.255, requiring any “national collegiate athletic association” to provide specified procedural protections (e.g., notice, access to information, and hearing-related requirements) in enforcement proceedings involving Nevada institutions, employees, student-athletes, or boosters.
- The statute applied to NCAA enforcement activity involving Nevada parties regardless of where the investigation or proceeding occurred.
- The NCAA sued Nevada officials for declaratory and injunctive relief, alleging the statute violated the Commerce Clause and the Contract Clause.
- UNLV-related coaches and staff, including Jerry Tarkanian, Tim Grgurich, Ronald Ganulin, and Shelley Fischer, sought to invoke the Nevada statute for protections in NCAA proceedings.
- The district court declared the statute unconstitutional and enjoined appellants from seeking protection under it; the individual appellants appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether Nevada’s statute unconstitutionally regulates or unduly burdens interstate commerce by imposing Nevada-specific NCAA enforcement procedures with extraterritorial effect, in violation of the dormant Commerce Clause.
2. Whether the statute substantially impairs the contractual relationships among NCAA members embodied in the NCAA constitution and bylaws, in violation of the Contract Clause.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s declaratory judgment and injunction.
- The court held Nevada’s statute violated the Commerce Clause because it directly regulated interstate commerce and projected Nevada’s procedural requirements beyond Nevada’s borders.
- The court held the statute violated the Contract Clause because it substantially impaired the contractual enforcement framework agreed to by NCAA member institutions.

## Legal Principles

- A state law that directly regulates interstate commerce, including by controlling conduct outside the state’s borders, is generally invalid under the dormant Commerce Clause without further balancing.
- A state may not impose state-specific procedural mandates on a national organization in a manner that forces alteration of a uniform, multi-state program and creates a risk of inconsistent obligations across states.
- The NCAA constitution and bylaws can function as a contract among member institutions; a state law that rewrites agreed enforcement procedures for in-state participants can constitute a substantial impairment.
- Under the Contract Clause, substantial impairment of contractual obligations requires a significant and legitimate public purpose and a reasonable, appropriate adjustment; imposing state-mandated procedures that disrupt a uniform national scheme may fail that justification.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit invalidated Nevada’s attempt to regulate NCAA enforcement proceedings involving Nevada participants because the statute operated extraterritorially and burdened a uniform interstate enforcement system, and because it substantially impaired the contractual enforcement arrangement among NCAA member institutions.


National Collegiate Athletic Ass'n v. Miller, 10 F.3d 633 (9th Cir. 1993)