Implications of the DOJ about-turn on the Wire Act

03/01/2012 : QUOTABLE QUOTES ON THE D.O.J. CHANGE OF GAMBLING POLICY
 
Two industry personalities look at the implications of the Department of Justice's about-turn on the Wire Act.
 
The bald announcement in December that the US Department of Justice has for years had it all wrong on its definition of online gambling in terms of the Wire Act has spawned both hope and condemnation from a wide range of interested parties that includes individual state governments keen to legalise and raise tax revenues.
 
Two industry personalities have made practical assessments of the likely outcome of either federal or state-by-state legalization which are worth recalling:
 
In a post on his blog, Gambling and the Law, gambling analyst and Whittier Law professor I. Nelson Rose wrote:
 
"There is as little chance of this Congress passing a new Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act as there is of it passing a repeal of the UIGEA.… My bet is that … Congress will continue to do nothing, while Internet gambling explodes across the nation, made legal under state laws."
 
Frank Fahrenkopf, chief executive of trade body the American Gaming Association, says "I don't think that based upon the DOJ decision, states are given an automatic imprimatur. The DOJ decision leaves open a lot of questions.… It creates more confusion than clarity."
 
Fahrenkopf is also on record as opining that the DoJ announcement of its change of police does not have the force or authority of top judicial body like the Supreme Court, and therefore can be challenged or changed.
 
The AGA favours a federal legalization solution.