Filed in archive Poker News by David Aydt on July 15, 2007

The due date has come and past. The Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act's 270 day period before setting regulations on all online gambling (except Horse Racing and interstate lotteries of course) has gone by without a response from government figures. Now with a large group from the Interactive Media Entertainment and Gaming Association challenging the constitutionality of the law past via the Port Security Act several months ago, could provide some head ways to online poker players to return to playing versus figuring new schemes on how to get their money on and offline.

With all the news focused on Neteller and their struggles to sort out nearly $150 million in frozen US player's funds, more and more players such as the Poker Players Alliance are getting the word out to mainstream audiences.

Here's PokerNews' Martin Harris with the scoop on iMEGA's legal brief to halt UIGEA's enforcement:

The Interactive Media Entertainment and Gaming Association (iMEGA) has filed a brief in U.S. District Court (3rd District, N.J.) versus U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales supporting the group's request for a temporary restraining order against the enforcement of the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA). According to the fledgling group, the restraining order is being requested "in advance of a full court challenge on the Act's constitutionality."
A hearing date for iMEGA's case has been scheduled for September 4th.

The filing of the brief coincides with the conclusion of the 270-day period the UIGEA gave the Secretary of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve

System and Attorney General Gonzales to prescribe regulations to banks, credit card companies, and other "designated payment systems" prohibiting clients' transactions with online gambling sites. With that deadline's passing, the handing down of those regulations - and thus the first instances of the UIGEA actually being enforced - could be imminent. The granting of the iMEGA's request would therefore mean a temporary halt to the Act's enforcement until the UIGEA's constitutionality could be fully considered.

The legal argument outlined in the 44-page brief rests on four points. First, the iMEGA contends that its grievance with the Attorney General meets the needed standard of review entitling the group to a preliminary injunction against the Act's enforcement. In other words, since the iMEGA's members could face criminal prosecution for violating the UIGEA - and since iMEGA contends the UIGEA will eventually be proven unconstitional when those cases go to court - the case is therefore "justiciable" or worthy of being settled in a court of law beforehand.

The group's subsequent points further explain iMEGA's contention that the UIGEA is unconstitutional. In its second point, the group argues the Act's restrictions against online gambling violate previously established legal guidelines regarding "consensual private conduct."

The group's third point takes on the UIGEA's "selective prohibitions," contending that its prohibitions do not represent the "least restrictive means" to regulate online gambling. In this part of the brief, iMEGA claims that current filtering software can effectively prevent minors from accessing online gambling sites. The UIGEA "strikes too broad, too deep, too wide into private conduct, legal in many areas," argues the group, "and therefore is unconstitutional, especially where technology can eliminate the 'public morality' concerns of the UIGEA's proponents without affecting those for whom private Internet gambling is legal."

Finally, iMEGA argues how the Act will necessarily produce inconsistent regulation of online gambling, as well as attempt to impose blanket restrictions nationwide in a manner that ignores individual states' laws regarding online gambling. According to the group, both of these consequences also render the UIGEA unconstitutional.

According to iMEGA founder Joe Brennan, Jr., the filing for a temporary restraining order "forces the government to respond" to the group's complaint in a necessarily timely fashion. "We are very confident about the merits of our request," adds Brennan.