Is Online Poker Legal?

First let me qualify myself as an ordinary poker player.The Appeals Court specifically cites Duval's statement:
I am not an attorney, justice department official, nor a"[A] plain reading of the statutory language [of the
Supreme Court Justice. I am not giving legal advice norWire Act] clearly requires that the object of the
will I draw any conclusions. What I have compiled is agambling be a sporting event or contest." This is very
collection of the best information I can find on theexplicit language. You would have to jump through a lot
subject of "Is Online Poker legal?".of mental hoops to consider the playing of online poker
Several recent events in congress has broughtto be "a sporting event".
attention to the legal standing of online wagering inSo, while the US Justice Department recently stated
general. The first thing to understand is the skill gamethat the Wire Act covers casino games in addition to
of poker is not the same as sports betting nor evensports wagering, the Federal Appeals Court has
"random chance" casino games like craps and roulette.directly ruled that that interpretation is not correct. This
It may be treated the same eventually, or it may not.is not a small disagreement. It is a direct contradiction
Legal precedent for a lot of this simply does not exist.that could well spur the creation of new, 21st Century
As of this article, no person has been charged, broughtFederal legislation that actually deals with these issues.
to trial, convicted, or sentenced for playing online poker.One bill introduced by James Leach of Iowa, aims to
But this does not guarantee that if will not happen ininhibit the ability of citizens to gamble online. It however
the future.does nothing to criminalize actual gambling online. But
In my research I found that Professor I. Nelson Rose,other bills may be introduced in the future with that
Professor of Law, Whittier Law School Costa Mesa,goal.
Ca, is one of the world's leading authorities on gamblingGambling regulation traditionally has been the
law. He states that "no United States federal statuteresponsibility of individual states. For instance, New
or regulation explicitly prohibits Internet gambling, eitherYork State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer reached a
domestically or abroad." Still, the US government hassettlement with Citibank and PayPal regarding their
taken the position that certain things are illegal, andinvolvement with online gaming. Some individual states
more importantly, certain things are worthy ofhave laws prohibiting any form of gambling online (or
prosecution. The Wire Act is the statute most oftenany gambling for that matter). That is a different issue
cited as making on-line gambling a federal offense. Hefrom whether it is legal on a US Federal level.
notes that the operative subsection reads: "WhoeverA key distinction exists on a Federal level between
being engaged in the business of betting or wageringbettors and those operators whose business is to
knowingly uses a wire communication facility for thebenefit from the actual making of wagers: "engaged in
transmission in interstate or foreign commerce of betsthe business of betting or wagering... which entitles the
or wagers or information assisting in the placing ofrecipient to receive money or credit as a result of bets
bets or wagers on any sporting event or contest, oror wagers, or for information assisting in the placing of
for the transmission of a wire communication whichbets or wagers..." As long as players stay in the
entitles the recipient to receive money or credit as a"players" category and not in the
result of bets or wagers, or for information assisting inin-the-business-of-wagering owners/bookies/runners
the placing of bets or wagers, shall be fined under thisagents categories, a significant difference in status
title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both."exists.
Rose goes on to say: "The first element of the WireThere are many ways to read the Wire Act, but only
Act, says that the statute applies only to an individualunder the broadest interpretation could playing online
involved in the 'business of betting or wagering' (not topoker be deemed illegal in terms of the Wire Act. In
a common player)."my opinion (which isn't worth a hill of beans... only the
The question of whether Internet sportsbetting isUS Supreme Court's view will matter unless new
covered by the Wire Act seems to have beenlegislation passes) playing online poker is not illegal for
answered by the US Supreme Court's refusal toUS citizens, in regards to Federal Law -- unless it is a
review the conviction of Jay Cohen. Whether onlinecrime in an individual state, in which case the Federal
casinos and online poker cardrooms are coveredOrganized Crime Control Act of 1970 may apply. The
under the aimed-at-sportsbetting Wire Act is aAct makes it a federal crime for five or more persons
different question. In February 2001, Judge Stanwoodto engage in a gambling business illegal under state
Duval of the US District Court in New Orleans ruledlaw. Gambling online is definitely illegal in some states,
that it did not: "'in plain language' [the Wire Act] doesbut the Crime Control Act of 1970 does not apply to
not prohibit Internet gambling 'on a game of chance.'"players. In addition, since the Crime Control Act does
On November 21, 2002, the US Fifth Circuit Federalnot refer to foreign commerce, it is hard to see how a
Appeals Court upheld Duval's ruling, stating: "The districtcase could be made that it applies to Internet gaming
court concluded that the Wire Act concerns gamblingacross multiple international borders.
on sporting events or contests... We agree with theFinally, in November 2004, the Caribbean island nation
district court's statutory interpretation, its reading of theof Antigua and Barbuda won a World Trade
relevant case law, its summary of the relevantOrganization ruling that United States legislation
legislative history, and its conclusion."criminalizing online betting violates global laws. In April
The Appeals Court further states: "Because we find2005, the WTO Appellate Body affirmed the principal
neither the Wire Act nor the mail and wire fraudconclusions involved.
statutes may serve as predicates here, we need notSo, as long as online poker players do not participate in
consider the other federal statutes identified by theowning a share of the house rake; as long as players
Plaintiffs... As the district court correctly explained,only wager against each other; as long as players
these sections may not serve as predicates hereparticipate in the skill game of poker and do not bet
because the Defendants did not violate any applicablesports; as long as players obey state laws... draw your
federal or state law."own conclusions.