« Courts - Even more on: "SCOTUS rejects 7th Circuit ruling re Joseph Corcoran" | Main | Ind. Law - "Some fear charter schools may become sports powers" »
Friday, October 23, 2009
Courts - More on: "Kentucky Supreme Court to hear online gambling case"
Updating this ILB entry from Oct. 21st, which includes links to a number of earlier entries, Stephene Steitzer of the Louisville Courier Journal reported yesterday on the oral argument before the Kentucky Supreme Court. Some quotes:
FRANKFORT, Ky. — Gov. Steve Beshear circumvented the General Assembly and misused the judicial system last year when he attempted to stop Kentuckians from gambling on the Internet, attorneys for the industry told the Supreme Court Thursday.On the other side of the issue, administration attorneys contended that the state had the right to attempt to seize 141 gambling domain names, such as pokerstars.com.
A Franklin Circuit Court judge ruled for the Beshear administration in its lawsuit to seize the domain names, but the Court of Appeals overturned that decision. The case was then appealed to the Supreme Court.
The administration moved against the online sites, in part, out of concern that Internet wagering was hurting the state’s horse industry.
Three attorneys representing Web gambling trade groups and some of the individual domain names focused their arguments Thursday on how the administration's efforts violated state law.
They contended that domain names are not considered gambling devices as defined by state law, that the administration wrongly applied criminal statutes to a civil proceeding and that Franklin Circuit Court didn't have jurisdiction to allow the state to seize the domain names.
Justice Lisabeth Abramson questioned whether domain names could be defined as gambling devices since the statute was written before online gambling started and referred to such things as roulette wheels and poker tables.
“Aren't you just trying to use a 30-year-old statute that talks about tangible property to get to Internet gambling?” she asked.
Eric Lycan, who represented the administration, said the gambling device law should be interpreted broadly because the legislature clearly intended to ban casino-style gambling in the state.
Industry attorneys argued that the legislature could amend the law to make clear that it applies to Internet gambling but has not done so. The attorneys also argued that the administration wrongly used a criminal seizure and forfeiture law in a civil proceeding. * * *
Abramson raised a question that pointed to an issue the attorneys for the industry have long argued: Successfully seizing the domain names would not stop Kentuckians from gambling on the Internet because the gambling establishment would simply create new domain names.
“If they just adopt a new domain name under the same (Internet provider) address, then what?” she asked. “Do you start all over?”
Lycan said in response: “The commonwealth is well in its rights to do so if (the domain name operators) continue to use that device to violate the law of the commonwealth.”
During hearings in circuit court, industry attorneys also argued that the move violates the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and international trade agreements.
Fleischaker said those arguments would be pursued if the Supreme Court does not find violations of state law.
Posted by Marcia Oddi on October 23, 2009 09:53 AM
Posted to Courts in general