Anti-Online Gambling Law Challenged In Court
from the but-we-need-to-protect-our-ports dept
A year ago, as part of a larger bill that was supposed to be about "protecting our ports," Congress banned online gambling. While there's some back and forth over the law (and some politicians seem interested in changing the law), representatives of the gambling industry have gone to court to get the law declared unconstitutional, violating an individual's right to gamble in the privacy of their own home. The judge said that she expects to rule within 30 days, so it should be a relatively quick turnaround -- though, it's almost inevitable that a series of appeals will follow no matter what the outcome. So don't expect any final outcome on this question for a few years. The Justice Department, of course, has no problem with the law and is asking for the case to be dismissed, even if they haven't even bothered to enforce the law (yet).
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: constitutional, online gambling
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
I guess the meaning of control and protection are the same thing in the eyes of politicians.
AKA Doublespeak
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Movie = Reality
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Movie = Reality
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Question?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Maybe I'm wrong.....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
On-line sites have a rake.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Last I checked
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Last I checked
>> there was no right to gamble in the Constitution.
We need better civics classes in this country. The right to gamble doesn't have to be in the Constitution. The Constitution doesn't grant rights to people; it grants rights to the government, then severely restricts those rights.
What DOES have to be in the Constitution, and isn't as far as I can see, is permission for the government to regulate gambling. Alas, online gambling is probably covered by the "interstate commerce" clause, but a poker game in my house? Highly doubtful.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Last I checked
Perhaps you haven't actually read the Constitution. Otherwise you'd know that the first 8 Amendments, also known as the Bill of Rights, grant rights to citizens of the United States.
What DOES have to be in the Constitution, and isn't as far as I can see, is permission for the government to regulate gambling. Alas, online gambling is probably covered by the "interstate commerce" clause, but a poker game in my house? Highly doubtful.
Perhaps you did not read the blurb Mike wrote. This case has nothing to do with the Commerce Clause as per the complaint. The complaint is saying that it infringes on his right to gamble in the privacy of his own home; it is not making a case against Congress's commerce power. If someone is going to claim that anti-online gambling laws are unconstitutional for that reason, then there has to be something in the U.S. Constitution that would grant a U.S. citizen that right. I'm sure the claimant is going to rely on the Due Process Clause and fundamental rights necessary for a free society, but there's nothing historically fundamental about gambling in one's own home.
You're missing the point. This isn't about "poker night"; this is about online gambling. Online gambling is not solely confined to one's own home. Congress has the power to regulate that kind of behavior as per the Commerce Clause, and to say that it doesn't is foolhardy, even under Rehnquist's "substantial effects" test. If you don't like the law, talk to your Congressman.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Last I checked
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Last I checked
I would argue the states don't have that right either ("or to the people"). What we fail to realize is that the constitution was created as a means to give people in the USA personal freedom, and as long as your excersize of freedom does not encroach upon another's, then it should be considered lawful. By gambling, each party voluntarily submits their wealth to a game of chance (yes, I know there is skill involved). The key word is "voluntarily". If I want to gamble, and my neighbor wants to gamble, why should any part of the government have a say?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]