Potentially damaging Trump gambling proposal blocked by judge
On Monday the 3rd of June 2019, a federal judge intervened in the New Jersey gambling debate, formally blocking a bill that had been proposed by the Trump administration. It was a move that was welcomed by opponents to the bill, who had been worried about the impact that it could have on New Jersey’s lucrative gambling industry.
The decision by U.S. District Judge Paul Barbadoro was outlined in a 61-page decision document. In the document, Barbadoro outlined that he was concerned with the Department of Justice’s interpretation of the Wire Act, stating that it did not apply to not-in-state lotteries or online gambling. In his view, it was only relevant to the sport betting industry.
This decision comes despite the DOJ proposing that the Wire Act should be expanded to include any online gambling that crossed state lines. Opponents were considerably concerned about this proposition, arguing that it could heavily weaken New Jersey’s online gambling and sports betting markets. In their view, this proposition was deeply flawed, as certain aspects of online gambling are inherently across state lines. As a result of things such as internet connection and payment processes, there could be widespread violation of the newly defined Wire Act.
In March, the Attorney General Gurbir Grewal stated;
“The future of New Jersey’s online gaming industry is at stake because of DOJ’s unlawful about-face regarding internet gaming – an activity that DOJ promised us was perfectly legal just eight years ago.”
The proposal put forward by the Trump administration aimed to overturn an Obama-era rulining. This 2011 ruling allowed online gambling and hence, assisting the industry to grow in scale.
It has been a ruling that many state agencies have relied on and Barbadoro was concerned that it now brands these as criminals.
The suit was originally brought by the New Hampshire Lottery Commission. They were concerned that it could jeopardize the Powerball or other state lotteries.
Furthermore, concerns were raised that the proposition might have been suggested with ulterior and worrisome motives. Grewal, who felt the need to intervene in the suit, pointed out that the DOJ’s decision was made with the backing of Sheldon Adelson. He is a massive Republican Party donor and a powerful casino lobbyist.
As a result the Attorney General has since filed a Freedom of Information Act, seeking to investigate the potential role that Aldeson could have played. The request was denied.
