DOJ Throws in the Towel on Wire Act Interpretation, But Congressional Action May Loom
Co-author, Washington Legal Foundation, July 12, 2021
In our first WLF Legal Pulse post on this topic back in February 2019, we analyzed the December 2018 U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) Office of Legal Counsel (“OLC”) legal opinion concerning the breadth of the federal Wire Act and noted the shock wave it sent through the Internet gambling industry. OLC’s 2018 opinion reversed OLC’s long-time interpretation of the statute as prohibiting only interstate sports wagering, not all forms of gambling across state lines. Almost immediately, the New Hampshire Lottery, believing that this reinterpretation would put it out of business, filed a lawsuit seeking a judicial declaration that OLC’s 2011 interpretation was indeed correct. In that case, the district court sided with the New Hampshire Lottery, and on January 20, 2021, a unanimous panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit agreed that the 2011 opinion was correct. With DOJ’s time to appeal that decision having expired on June 21, the Department issued a statement last week that “the government is not planning to seek Supreme Court review of the First Circuit’s decision.” With that, DOJ has effectively returned to its 2011 opinion that the Wire Act does not prohibit the use of the Internet for all forms of gambling.
Click here to read full article.
Contributors:
Recent Insights
Read MoreSenators Agree on Compromise to End Government Shutdown
Presentation | November 10, 2025Understanding of Withdrawal Liability
Client Alert | November 10, 2025U.S. Expands Critical Minerals Financing and Bilateral Partnerships Under Trump
Client Alert | November 06, 2025Election 2025: Pennsylvania Judicial Retention
Client Alert | November 06, 2025Election 2025: California’s Prop 50 Passes
Client Alert | November 06, 2025Election 2025: What to Watch From Other Notable Races
You have chosen to send an email to Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck or one of its lawyers. The sending and receipt of this email and the information in it does not in itself create and attorney-client relationship between us.
If you are not already a client, you should not provide us with information that you wish to have treated as privileged or confidential without first speaking to one of our lawyers.
If you provide information before we confirm that you are a client and that we are willing and able to represent you, we may not be required to treat that information as privileged, confidential, or protected information, and we may be able to represent a party adverse to you and even to use the information you submit to us against you.
I have read this and want to send an email.