(The states previously not mentioned above that also have teamed with Michigan in the brief are Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Idaho, Kentucky, Maryland, Minnesota, North Carolina, Ohio, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia, and Wisconsin.)
Finally, it is striking to see the following sentence in the Michigan brief — and how it makes one wonder why such ancient history remains so legally relevant in the internet era: “In 1961, [U.S.] Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy proposed the legislation to fight organized crime, which relied in part on gambling to fund its operations.”
Still more briefs offer new angles
Another brief was filed by the iDevelopment and Economic Association, or iDEA, which is a Washington, D.C.-based trade group that represents players in online poker, online casino gaming, and other sectors of the iGaming community. Its parallel argument
references the economic harm to its members should DOJ not stand down in the controversy — or be forced to do so by the courts.
Online gaming in New Jersey in 2019, notes iDEA attorney Jeff Ifrah, generated $483 million in revenue and $73 million in tax revenue. A special emphasis was noted about the DOJ threat to the online poker pact among New Jersey, Delaware, and Nevada being under siege.
And since iDEA gained oral argument time at the District Court level, it seeks 10 more minutes before the Third Circuit.
International Game Technology, better known as IGT, also entered the fray
with its own brief last week. And, it, too, wants 10 minutes of oral argument — if the Coalition to Stop Internet Gambling gets its wish for 10 minutes by the court.
IGT is the king of lotteries, serving as the primary lottery contractor in 25 states and providing “equipment and services for 12 more lotteries. So this is the brief that most thoroughly dissects CSIG’s arguments in the case.
IGT attorney Jonathan Cohn writes that “the [language] construction the Coalition advances is equal parts unprecedented, unsupported, and unwise. No court has ever ruled that the states are subject to criminal liability under general provisions of federal gaming law.”
New Hampshire Strikes Back