US Gambling Rules - thought provoking

[Luv2DriveTT]

I found an article on CardPlayer.com about the legalities of internet gambling. What is more interesting is how the rules the US government are trying to use in their cases do not currently apply, however they do apply in states like New York where poker is essentially outlawed. In essence not only are NY based poker rooms potentially breaking NY State laws, they are also breaking federal laws with much stiffer penalties if there are more than 5 employees and has a gross revenue of more than $2,000 a day if in operation for more than 30 days. Read there article HERE (http://www.cardplayer.com/poker_magazine/archives/showarticle.php?a_id=13636) . Luckilly from my very limited understanding of federal law the two are rarely applied together, unless the crime warrents federal involvment (such as Rico statutes). What do you guys think? Has anyone heard of this being applied before?

[ QUOTE ]
18 U.S.C.S. § 1955
(Prohibition of illegal gambling businesses)

Federal Code section 18 U.S.C.S. § 1955 (2003) prohibits illegal gambling where such gambling is a violation of law in the state where it is operating. The code section essentially says that anyone involved in the gambling business shall be imprisoned in state prison for no more than five years and have their assets confiscated if the state proves:

1. The gambling violates a state law.

2. There are five or more people involved in running the whole operation.

3. The company is in continuous operation for a period in excess of 30 days or has a gross revenue of $2,000 in any single day.

[/ QUOTE ]

In da club /images/graemlins/club.gif

[gvibes]

Full text of statute - http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/1955.html

I don't see how it's constitutional under US v Lopez. http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/93-1260.ZO.html It's similar to the RICO act (18 USC 1961 and following) in that a violation is predicated on the violation of state law, but the RICO act has an "interstate commerce" jurisdictional hook. This statute doesn't (I don't think).

[MisterKing]

What is it about Lopez that makes you think the other statute is unconstitutional? Laws targeting financial transactions tied to the online gambling industry seem, to me, to fit the "affecting commerce" definition much more than the Gun Free School Zones Act (Lopez), or the Violence Against Women Act (Morrison).

That said, if we're only talking about 18 U.S.C. 1955, I do think a Lopez challenge would be interesting. Isn't the commercial activity of operating a gambling establishment potentially just as "interstate" in reach as the hotel business in Heart of Atlanta? I don't know how the caveat that the gaming must be illegal under state law affects things here.

Just food for thought -- I'm no expert in constitutional law, so take the thoughts above with a grain of salt. I can tell you with some authority the following, however: anti-gambling legislation is NOT (thankfully) on the Senate Judiciary Committee's agenda the rest of this year. Lets hope it stays that way.

[gvibes]

If you think the current court would define "affecting commerce" to be as general as "dealing with money," then it would be constitutional. I don't think they would, especially when the underlying activity is classically regulated criminally by the state (as the statute makes clear).

It is definitely as "interstate" as Heart of Atlanta, but that case pisses me off, so I will choose to ignore it.

And I am no expert either.

[PoorLawyer]

Affecting Commerce means pretty much anything from my limited experience. If that card room gets their napkins in bulk from a costco in jersey, that affects commerce.

[Luv2DriveTT]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't see how it's constitutional under US v Lopez.

[/ QUOTE ]

I must admit that although I am fasinated by law, I am mostly over my head in this conversation. Please explain how US v Lopez applies in this situation, I do not understand how interstate commerce relates to the fedral application of the law.

Thanks for the education...

[PoorLawyer]

The federal government can only regulate a business under the commerce clause if they do something that "affects commerce". If you are wholly intrastate in every regard you can discriminate, etc as long as you arent violating any state laws. Affecting commerce is read broadly though which increases the fed's power to regulate.

[J.R.]

The staute in questions contains lots fo congresisonal findings about how gambling effects interstate commerce, such as organized crime connections, decrease in demand for legal gambling in other states, decreased demand for other goods, etc. There's like 10 federal court opinions where federal authority was challenged and the statute was uphled under the commerce power.