This post is what started me wondering . . .
Quote:
Originally Posted by PokerXanadu
The court basically said four things:
1. Federal law does not expressly grant states the authority to regulate interstate iGambling, therefore the dormant commerce clause can apply to any state law that attempts to do so.
2. The dormant commerce clause does not apply to the WA law because this law bans iGambling equally for both in-state and out-of-state business entities, and therefore is not discriminatory against out-of-state businesses.
3. The argument that the law is protectionist for B&M casinos is not valid because: iGambling is a different activity than b&m gambling and can be legislated separately; and any increase in business for the b&m casinos is indirect, not a direct discriminatory effect of the law and therefore not germane.
4. There is a legitimate state interest (the protection of the public health, welfare, safety, and morals) accomplished by the state ban on iGambling, and this can't be reasonably accomplished in a less burdensome (to businesses) manner. Therefore, the burden of the state ban on interstate commerce is not excessive in relation to the benefit to the state interest, so the dormant commerce clause does not apply.
There is a silver lining in #1 & #2, for states where protectionist intrastate legislation might be adopted. In this case, according to the reasoning of this WA ruling, intrastate iGambling legislation which bans all but intrastate sites would violate the dormant commerce clause. This should result in more states interested in a federal solution in lieu of intrastate-only licensing legislation.
