- US Online Poker
- US Online Casinos
- US Online Sports Betting
A significant legal test for poker in America appears to have gone well for proponents of the game.
Not familiar with the DiCristina case? Here’s an excellent (and concise) summary.
While a decision has yet to be issued by the court, people close to the case saw much to like about today’s proceedings:
Live reporting was not allowed from within the courtroom.
To re-emphasize, these are impressions of those close to the case and do not represent a guarantee of any particular outcome.
Much of what excited poker players about the original ruling by Judge Weinstein was his emphasis on poker as a game of skill – more like chess than craps.
But the amount of skill involved in poker was not directly in play during today’s hearing, as the DoJ elected to not contest the ruling on that issue. Instead, the DoJ argued that Judge Weinstein had misinterpreted the IGBA, renedering the issue of skill vs chance moot.
So what is the impact of the DoJ ignoring the skill issue? A poster on TwoPlusTwo clarified the implications of the DoJ’s decision:
[…] Anything not appealed is conceded. So if DOJ did not appeal this finding of fact, for the purposes of the appeal, it has conceded that poker is predominantly skill.
But, as you know, that concession for the purpose of appeal gains us no legal argument in future cases. Instead, we are guaranteed a positive, but welter weight, argument based on the trial court’s finding of fact. Good stuff to have in any subsequent wrangling on the subject, but not dispositive under any circumstances.
Again, this is all pre-decision speculation.
No, although it would be a general step in that direction. Online gambling would still be subject to state laws and possibly to other federal laws.