First legal challenge to UIGEA

[Hock_]

These cases weren't brought under the UIGEA.

[webmonarch]

[ QUOTE ]
There is zero chance of a federal district court dismissing a criminal case on the ground that it violates the WTO agreement.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ahh, depends on where it is. If it were in the 9th or 1st Circuits, there is a minuscule chance. Anyone know the venue?

Also, if anyone tells me the venue, I'll grab the filings and post them.

[JPFisher55]

The case is in the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri in the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals which is a liberal court.
Originally, the case had nothing to do with the UIGEA. It was under the 1961 Wire Act. However, the original complaint and indictment included charges for accepting bets made over the Internet. It is true that Mr. Carruther's motion to dismiss is based on the WTO case ruling making the Wire Act unenforceable against accepting Internet bets. But such a motion, if successful, would kill the UIGEA too.
At the very least, the whole issue is on track to the Supreme Court. But a settlement might end this case.

[MiltonFriedman]

I think you likely misread the Supreme Court's opinion. It did not rule that the Geneva Convention over-rode a conflicting Act of Congress which had been signed into law. Rather, the President could not do "X" because there was no basis in Federal law to rely on. Congress had not authorized what the President was doing.

Justice Stephen Breyer in a concurrence wrote, "The Court's conclusion ultimately rests upon a single ground: Congress has not issued the Executive a 'blank check.'"

The Washington Post also reported it differently than you recall it, noting that there was no basis in US Federal law for the detention regulations being challenged:

"Brushing aside administration pleas not to second-guess the commander in chief during wartime, a five-justice majority ruled that the commissions, which were outlined by Bush in a military order on Nov. 13, 2001, were neither authorized by federal law nor required by military necessity, and ran afoul of the Geneva Conventions.



Detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, must have courts-martial, the Supreme Court ruled, or the president can ask for legislation to proceed differently. (Pool Photo By Brennan Linsley)

...
As a result, no military commission can try Salim Ahmed Hamdan, the former aide to Osama bin Laden whose case was before the justices, or anyone else, unless the president does one of two things he has resisted doing for more than four years: operate the commissions by the rules of regular military courts-martial, or ask Congress for specific permission to proceed differently"

[JPFisher55]

Yes, but the reason that the President's procedures were ruled unlawful is that they violated the Geneva Convention, which the court ruled applied to the GITMO detainees. The court implied, if not ruled, that any legislation governing the treatment and tribunals of these detainees would have to conform to the Geneva Convention. No one has suggested that Congress could pass a law permitting the President's proposed treatment that the Supreme Court ruled unlawful.
The real controversy in that case was the ruling that the GITMO detainees had any rights under the Geneva Convention.

[cgrohman]

Technically, from a mathematical stand point, it is less than zero.