Stephen A. Murphy
E-mail Author
"Poker’s UIGEA Upheld"
From Card Player Magazine
© Sep 7, 2009
The UIGEA is here to stay, at
least for now.
The U.S. third circuit court of appeals upheld the Unlawful Internet Gambling
Enforcement Act this week, rejecting the argument that the law should be
repealed because it was unconstitutional. The Interactive Media Entertainment
and Gaming Association, the organization that brought the case to the court,
says that it is considering an appeal, but it has not immediately filed one.
While the decision is seen as a blow to poker advocates who hoped this case
could initiate the immediate removal of a law that severely hampers the online
gaming industry, IMEGA chairman
Joe Brennan, Jr. believes that this ruling does open the door for the potential
regulation of legalized poker in the U.S.
“The court made it clear — gambling on the Internet is unlawful where state
law says so,” said Brennan. “But there are only a half-dozen states which have
laws against Internet gambling, leaving 44 states where it is potentially
lawful. It’s not perfect, but it’s a good start.”
While the court’s decision does not effectively change anything, Brennan
believes the language of the judges’ opinion will relieve states’ concerns that
legalizing and regulating online poker in their own states is somehow illegal
under the Wire Act. While Brennan and other gambling and legal experts have
argued that the Wire Act only applies to sports betting, the Department of
Justice has maintained that online poker is illegal.
Judge Dolores Sloviter, the judge who wrote the opinion in the third circuit
court, made it clear that the UIGEA could not be used to support the Department of
Justice’s position.
“It bears repeating that the Act itself does not make any gambling activity
illegal,” wrote Sloviter. “Whether the transaction…constitutes unlawful Internet
gambling turns on how the law of the state from which the bettor initiates the
bet would treat that bet, i.e. if it is illegal under that state’s law, it
constitutes ‘unlawful Internet gambling’ under the Act.”
While Brennan expressed disappointment that the court didn’t agree with the
arguments that his organization presented — that the UIGEA was unconstitutional due to vagueness, privacy
concerns, first amendment issues, and because it was counter to U.S. treaty
obligations — he said that, in a way, “this levels the playing field.”
With the focus now on the individual states, IMEGA hopes to spend its time and resources on local
issues to try to regulate the industry.
“States have always held the power to regulate gambling in this country, not
the Federal government” said Brennan. “The court’s ruling seems to say ‘back to
the future’ when it comes to regulating Internet gambling, so we will turn our
attention to the states to make the case that this industry can be properly
regulated and produce badly needed tax revenue.”
FINISH ARTICLE
|
