Quote:
Originally Posted by Dilly_
"Online gambling should be considered to take place on tribal land if that’s where the servers are located"
^That's a "whoa" statement, but when you add the rest of the context, meh. Nothing in here says that if this were enacted that tribal land based operations can offer online poker anywhere in the country as long as the servers are on tribal land. The example the proposal seems to come from is specifically about Florida and Seminole, so still involving the state directly. The article also talks more about the big change being any gambling category a state offers, they must negotiate in good faith with tribal entities to offer those same games - again still dependent on what the state offers.
This reads as more the BIA got scolded by the Court of Appeals for not shooting down a compact they determined to be illegal and the BIA is now pushing the issue of "tell me more explicitly what the law is." Very similar to NH Lottery suing the DOJ to clarify the nuances of The Wire Act, but that was two years ago and still no interstate online
Thanks for the lead.
New Hampshire won, although the Wire Act had never applied to poker or anything other than sports betting businesses nor to activities by mere players.
The "servers on tribal land" argument was shot down in California in the past as to players who would access those servers from outside tribal lands.
Interestingly, a tribe in Oklahoma once received an online gaming license from the Isle of Man but lacked an ability to capitalize on it. (Their "partner" seemed in my opinon to be all hat and no cattle at the time. )