Litigation: Changes Made to Federal Law That Could Determine Poker's Legality
InsideCounsel
December 5, 2013

The article is a follow up to a previous review of U.S. v. DiCristina, in which Federal District Judge Jack B. Weinstein found that poker was not gambling because it is a game predominated by skill rather than chance. In August 2013, the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals reversed Judge Weinstein because the court determined that the Illegal Gambling Business Act (IGBA) did not require the prosecution to demonstrate playing poker violated federal law. The 2nd Circuit held that the IGBA applied to running an “illegal gambling business,” and that as long as the gambling in question violated state law Mr. DiCristina could be convicted of running an illegal gambling business. The authors analyze the decision, Judge Weinstein’s analysis, and what this means for “poker nation.”

To read the full article, please click here.