Online Gambling

Is Jeff Sessions Ready to Ban Internet Gambling by DOJ Fiat?

Prohibitionists want the next attorney general to criminalize online betting by rewriting federal law.



During his confirmation hearing on Tuesday, Jeff Sessions promised that as attorney general he would "revisit" a 2011 Justice Department memo that interpreted the Wire Act of 1961 as applying only to sports betting, which opened the door to state-regulated online gambling. The implication was that Sessions might revert to the department's earlier position on the statute, which implausibly read it as banning all forms of internet-assisted betting, even those permitted by state law.

Although Sessions' comments set off alarm bells among online poker fans and other supporters of legalization, it's not clear how serious he is about reversing the DOJ's position. The Alabama senator said he was "shocked" by the 2011 memo and "criticized it." But it was obvious he had not read it, and there seems to be no public record of his opposition to it.

Sessions was responding to a question from Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), sponsor of a bill that would amend the Wire Act to ban all online gambling. The bill, which is backed by Republican mega-donor Sheldon Adelson, who is keen to wipe out online competition with his casinos, is called the Restoration of America's Wire Act. But it does not "restore" anything; it rewrites the 1961 law by excising its reference to sports betting and inserting language about the internet.

To give you an idea of how big a loon Graham is on the subject of online gambling, he tried to justify his bill on national security grounds during the 2015 confirmation hearings for Attorney General Loretta Lynch. "Would you agree with me that one of the best ways for a terrorist organization or criminal enterprise to be able to enrich themselves is to have online gaming?" he asked. Lynch allowed that "those who provide the material support and financing to terrorist organizations…will use any means to finance those organizations." She declined to offer an opinion on the DOJ memo, saying she was familiar with its conclusion but had not read it.

Although Sessions clearly had not read the memo either, he was eager to appease Graham. "I was shocked at the memorandum…that the Department of Justice issued with regard to the Wire Act and criticized it," he said. "Apparently there is some justification or argument that can be made to support the Department of Justice's position, but I did oppose it when it happened." Apparently there is some justification? Wouldn't you want to consider the DOJ's reasoning before criticizing its conclusion? It seems that's not necessary when you're a senator, but Sessions promised to do so after taking charge of the Justice Department. "I would revisit it," he assured Graham, "and I would make a decision about it based on careful study."

If Sessions really does study the issue carefully, he will find that the DOJ's current interpretation of the Wire Act is much more faithful to the text and history of the law than the interpretation the department repudiated. The Wire Act, which was a response to the involvement of organized crime in sports betting, made it a felony to use "a wire communication facility for the transmission in interstate or foreign commerce of bets or wagers or information assisting in the placing of bets or wagers on any sporting event or contest." Prior to 2011, the DOJ implausibly insisted that the phrase "on any sporting event or contest" does not modify "bets or wagers" and therefore does not restrict the law's scope to that kind of gambling. But the 2011 memo, a 13-page document prepared by the DOJ's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) in response to questions about online sales of state lottery tickets, concluded that "the Wire Act prohibits only the transmission of communications related to bets or wagers on sporting events or contests."

There is nothing at all "shocking" about that position, which was endorsed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit in a 2002 ruling that rejected Wire Act charges against the operators of websites offering casino-style games. The 5th Circuit matter-of-factly observed that "the Wire Act does not prohibit non-sports internet gambling." In a letter responding to Sessions' comments, the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) and six other organizations note that "the OLC memo was not a 'reinterpretation' of the Wire Act's intent; it merely restored the law to its original meaning."

It is not clear on what grounds Sessions "criticized" and "oppose[d]" the DOJ memo, or even that he did so. A search of his office's website turns up zero references to the Wire Act, and a Nexis search of news stories and transcripts since December 2011, when the memo was posted, finds no comments about it by Sessions.

Sessions, a social conservative, is no fan of online gambling but has not said much about it since he was elected to the Senate in 1996. "With the exception of his first two years as a United States senator," the Online Poker Report noted in November, "by and large, Sessions has avoided gambling issues." In 1997 Sessions announced that he was cosponsoring the Internet Gambling Prohibition Act, saying, "I am troubled by how easy it is for children to pick up their parents' credit cards and gamble on the Internet." But he never actually got around to cosponsoring the bill that year or in 1999. Nor was he listed as a cosponsor of Graham's bill in 2013-14 or last session.

Notably, Sessions said the 1997 bill would "update the law by extending existing prohibitions against gambling to the Internet," which contradicts Graham's premise that the Wire Act already bans online gambling, so that his bill merely "restores" the law's original meaning. That premise is pretty hard to swallow, since Congress passed the law decades before the internet existed and expressly limited its scope to sports betting.

Sessions may not approve of online gambling, but his job as attorney general will be to enforce the law as written, regardless of his personal policy preferences. "We appreciate nominee Sessions' pledge to give the issue 'careful study,'" says the Poker Players Alliance, "and we also have no doubt that such careful study will reaffirm what OLC, the courts and Congress already agree on: the Wire Act is limited to sports betting and states may regulate other forms of internet gaming."

Supporters of Graham's bill claim it would protect the prerogatives of states that refuse to let their residents play games for money, when in fact it would blatantly violate federalist principles by overriding the decisions of states that choose to legalize internet gambling. CEI warns that reading the Wire Act the way Graham prefers "would severely injure one of our nation's founding principles: the idea that the federal government's power should be limited and states should be free to regulate intrastate commerce as they see fit." It urges Sessions to defend the 10th Amendment by "rejecting cronyist calls from casino interests to create a national gambling ban."

NEXT: Cancer Moonshot Misses the Mark

Online Gambling Internet Department of Justice

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

Please to post comments

29 responses to “Is Jeff Sessions Ready to Ban Internet Gambling by DOJ Fiat?

    1. And a homo/homophobe

      1. Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link,

        go? to tech tab for work detail,,,,,,,

  1. Sessions was responding to a question from Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), sponsor of a bill that would amend the Wire Act to ban all online gambling.

    Is there anything that’s not on the female body that Graham doesn’t suck on?

    1. Anuses. He just does analingus.

      1. Lindsey Graham hasn’t touched a woman since his mom stopped breastfeeding him, right before he left for college.

  2. Fifty bucks this doesn’t happen.

  3. “Would you agree with me that one of the best ways for a terrorist organization or criminal enterprise to be able to enrich themselves is to have online gaming?”

    “I mean, just look at the Illinois Lottery!”

    1. “You too could win a state senate seat”?

      1. Hey look everybody, Blagojevich has Internet access in prison.

  4. Asshole nanny statist have a ban boner and the only cure for da blue ballz is MOAR banz!

  5. And the progs are so busy with the “HE’S A RACIST!!!!” narrative and ignoring the actual issues that he’s a shoo-in for confirmation.

    Thanks a lot, assholes.

    1. So, he gambled and won by bringing his granddaughter to the hearings?

    2. Identity politics is the shallowest and stupidest type of politics, and that’s an impressive feat.

  6. I was just wondering the other day why the NYSE still uses human beings in face-to-face encounters to buy and sell stocks rather than going to an electronic system like other modern exchanges, and now I know. But now I’m wondering why every stockbroker who picks up the phone or sends an e-mail to interact with clients or dealers isn’t in jail, along with all the clients and dealers.

    1. Well, that, and computers don’t snort coke.

      1. That technology is coming. Bailey has an article later today.

        1. If like to see those live feed google home bots on coke.

        2. Let the computers smoke dope, that way they won’t freak out at Kirk’s logic problems.

  7. “for the transmission in interstate or foreign commerce of bets or wagers or information assisting in the placing of bets or wagers on any sporting event or contest.”

    So they want to pull Stupid Grammar Tricks on this phrasing to make the first part of that clause apply to non-sports bets? All for the purpose of putting people in prison? And in defiance of an appeals court’s interpretation?

    If anyone gets sent to prison under the broad interpretation, it will basically be saying that ordinary citizens had the responsibility of deciding that the 5th Circuit was wrong.

    If the law is ambiguous, the defendant gets the benefit, that’s the rule of lenity. And a law which (according to Graham) can be misunderstood by a federal court is an ambiguous law.

  8. Jeff Session decrees that monthly klan meetings will now serve non-alcoholic punch instead of beer and poker will be replaced with more wholesome games like lynch the negro.

  9. So Sessions fends off a question on one of Graham’s personal bugaboos that he is not particularly knowledgable of by expressing mild agreement but otherwise non committal answer. He may end up doing what Geaham wants, but this is not something freak out over yet.

  10. Jess Sessions, have a heart attack already, pal.

  11. Have I missed something interesting, U.S. Senators not issuing DOJ decrees, which I thought would be the purview of the AG, that possibly being bad enough. In any case, Sessions is still a Senator, and with responsible action from The Senate, is such possible, will remain there. Otherwise, there have been a number of questions raised about Sessions being confirmed, for me the thing rises or falls, it most definitely falls, over the man’s position regarding Asset Forfeiture, aka Civil Asset Forfeiture, or as I much prefer, the following being much closer to the truth, Theft Under Color of Law, a most questionable process he has stated he supports.

  12. If laws are ambiguous, and open to various interpretations by those charged to enforce them, the fault would seem to lay at the feet of those who wrote the laws.
    Perhaps if Congress Members, and Senators, weren’t so busy fundraising for their next election, they might be able to do some of what they were elected to do – like write laws in a clear and concise manner, not needing the reading of goat-entrails for their meaning.

  13. A- My such language! I thought for a moment I had stumbled of a Progressive web site.

    B- This is really an issue for Congress. Actually, I think we are dealing with an issue that falls under police powers which should normally be a state or local matter. However, state and local exercise of police powers can be mooted by the internet or other technology, a situation I find undesirable for the reason that it will tend to shift the exercise of those powers to the federal level. A solution that relates to more than just gambling is wanted.

    C- A Federal ban might well revive elements of the old style Mafia. I recall from several decades back in New York the appeal of the local (illegal) bookie was that his organization took a smaller cut, withheld no taxes and didn’t believe in IRA reporting. As a service provider, the Mafia held a comparative advantage over New York’s pari-mutual betting system.

  14. I can see what your saying… Raymond `s article is surprising, last week I bought a top of the range Acura from making $4608 this-past/month and-a little over, $10,000 this past month . with-out any question its the easiest work I’ve ever had . I began this five months/ago and almost straight away startad bringin in minimum $82 per-hr
    . Read more on this site…..

  15. Yep. Search Youtube for “Trump and Televangelists”. It’s a peek at who will be writing what kinds of Enabling Acts for the next several years.

  16. The best part of work is from comfort of your house and get paid from $100-$2k each week. Start today and have your first cash at the end of this week. For more info Check the following link


  17. just before I saw the receipt that said $7527 , I accept that my mom in-law woz like actualey making money in there spare time from there pretty old laptop. . there aunt had bean doing this for less than twentey months and at present cleared the depts on there appartment and bourt a great new Citro?n 2CV . look here…….
    Clik This Link inYour Browser.

  18. My best friend’s wife makes Bucks75/hr on the laptop. She has been unemployed for eight months but last month her income with big fat bonus was over Bucks9000 just working on the laptop for a few hours.
    Read more on this site

Comments are closed.