information … may cross state lines.” Accordingly, the NHLC and one of its vendors sought relief under the Declaratory Judgment Act and the Administrative Procedure Act, seeking an order to set aside the 2018 OLC opinion and a declaration that the Wire Act only applies to wagers on sporting events or contests and not to state-operated lotteries. The NHLC argued that if the 2018 opinion was not set aside, the state’s Education Trust Fund would lose millions of dollars in funds annually and banks would become unwilling to accept and process state lottery transactions. The case focused on statutory interpretation, specifically whether the phrase “on any sporting event or contest” qualifies the term “bets or wagers” as used throughout section 1084(a) of the Wire Act. The government argued that because the “sports gambling qualifier” only appears one time in the first clause of section 1084(a) after the phrase “information assisting in the placing of bets or wagers,” it is limited to qualifying only “bets or wagers” in that one instance. Further, because Clause Two makes no reference to sports wagering, the court should not read the “sports gambling qualifier” into that clause. The NHLC asserted that, due to the structure of section 1084(a), reading the “sports gambling qualifier” into all uses of “bets or wagers” of the Wire Act would lead to a more natural reading of the law. Agreeing with the NHLC, the First Circuit held that section 1084(a) of the Wire Act only applies to the interstate transmission of wire communications related to any “sporting event or contest.” The Court found that the use of the phrase “bets and wagers” instead of “bets or wagers on any sporting event or contest” was simply due to “Congress using shorthand to carry over a phrase from Clause One to Clause Two.” Further, the Court found that the government’s interpretation of the Wire Act “would lead to odd and seemingly inexplicable results.” If the “sports gambling qualifier” only applied in the one instance it is used in Clause One, then the Wire Act would have the effect of “broadly barring the placing of bets or wagers while only narrowly barring assistance in placing bets or wagers.” The Court cited the Wire Act’s legislative history to further evince that Congress did not intend the results of the 2018 OLC opinion. McGirt v. Oklahoma (July 9, 2020) —The U.S. Court, in a 5-4 decision penned by Justice Neil Gorsuch, handed down a tremendous victory to the Muskogee Creek Nation and all tribal governments by ruling that the Nation’s reservation is intact and constitutes Indian country for purposes of the Major Crimes Act. The case arose out of a conviction in which the individual challenged Oklahoma’s jurisdiction to try him on the grounds that he is a tribal member and his crimes took place on the Muscogee Creek Nation Reservation, which is subject to the Major Crimes Act and must be prosecuted by the United States. While federal law pertaining to criminal jurisdiction in Indian country is well-developed, it has long been ignored in Oklahoma on the theory that most of Indian country in Oklahoma had been diminished at statehood. The Court firmly rejected the diminishment argument and upheld the territorial jurisdiction of the Creek Nation, and presumably other treaty tribes in Oklahoma. The Court stated, “Today we are asked whether the land these treaties promised remains an Indian reservation for purposes of federal criminal law. Because Congress has not said otherwise, we hold the government to its word.”
17
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs