Appeal Arguments In Internet-Gaming Statute Challenge

The federal appeals court case reported on in this article involves both a statutory challenge and trade-group standing. The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey had upheld the constitutionality of the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006 (UIGEA), though the district court did initially find that the Interactive Media Entertainment & Gaming Association could properly pursue a claim on behalf of its members alleging violation of First Amendment associational rights. The district court noted of the latter point: "The plaintiff thus has shown that its members satisfy the [constitutional] Article III requirements for standing: the existence of an injury-in-fact, which is traceable to UIGEA and redressable by favorable judicial action. ' The action seeks to prevent a criminal statute prohibiting certain gambling transactions from allegedly infringing the First Amendment rights of Internet gambling businesses, and thus is relevant to the plaintiff's organizational goal to 'represent the interests of persons and companies which provide Internet interactive [gaming and gambling services.]'” Interactive Media Entertainment & Gaming Association Inc. v. Gonzales, 07-2625 (MLC) (D.N.J. 2008).]

In the high-stakes court battle over the constitutionality of a federal law that bans all Internet gambling transactions that would be illegal in the gambler's state, a trio of federal appeals judges in Philadelphia appeared unlikely to strike the law down. Instead, hearing recent oral arguments, all three judges on the Third U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel seemed inclined to uphold the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006 and to reject arguments from two lawyers for a gambling trade association who complained that the wording of the law is so vague it cannot be understood.