NJ Law Journal 8/27/07 -- Front Page Article on IMEGA Suit

[JPFisher55]

[ QUOTE ]
... in at least SOME states. Only then do they get to argue 1st Amendment issues. This means POKER or ONLINE CASINO members, be they operators or affiliates or players.

Sports betting operators will NOT suffice. DOJ will likely win on the following point re conduct covered by the Wire Act:

"Numerous courts - often after little analysis
- have rejected such challenges to the Wire Act. See, e.g., Truchinski v. United States, 393 F.2d 627, 634 (8th Cir. 1968) ("the provisions of Section 1084 do not trespass on the first amendment guarantee of free speech"); United States v. Kelley, 254 F. Supp. 9, 14-15 (S.D.N.Y. 1966)
(same), rev’d in part on other grounds, 395 F.2d 727 (2d Cir. 1968); United States v. Borgese, 235 F. Supp. 286, 296 (S.D.N.Y. 1964) (upholding the Wire Act against a constitutional challenge because "[t]he First Amendment is not applicable where criminal conduct is involved"); United States v. Smith, 209 F. Supp. 907, 918 (E.D. Ill. 1962) (the Wire Act "do[es] not restrict freedom of speech; [it] merely prohibit[s] the use of interstate facilities to certain conduct which the Congress has declared to be illegal.").

They will win on Standing OR on 1st Amendment grounds, and will win NOW.

This sohuld not be news to them, I hope they have affidavits and witnesses lined up who are proper, law-abiding members/plaintiffs.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, but those cases do not concern online sportsbetting or online gambling. I think that activities in your own home have more constitutional protection than activities outside your own home. Doesn't iMEGA argue that the sodomy cases support this point.
Thus, does applying the Wire Act to online gambling, even online sports betting violate constitution rights. I don't know and I doubt that iMEGA will get to that issue.