8/20/19
LACK OF JUDICIAL ENDORSEMENT
• Federal courts also rejected the notion that the Johnson Act extends to technologic aids to the play of bingo • “The text of IGRA quite explicitly indicates that Congress did not intend to allow the Johnson Act to reach bingo aids. . . . Reading the Johnson Act to forbid such aids would render the quoted language a nullity. Why would Congress carefully protect such technologic aids through the text of [IGRA], yet leave them to the wolves of a Johnson Act forfeiture action?” United States v. 103 Electronic Gambling Devices , 223 F.3d 1091, 1102 (9th Cir. 2000). • “We further conclude Congress did not intend the Johnson Act to apply if the game at issue fits within the definition of a Class II game and is played with the use of an electronic aid.” U.S. v. 162 MegaMania Gambling Devices, 231 F.3d 713 (10th Cir. 2000). • “[W]hile complete, self-contained electronic or mechanical facsimiles of a game of chance, including bingo, may indeed be forbidden by the Johnson act after the enactment of IGRA, . . . We hold that mere technologic aids to bingo . . . are not.” Diamond Game Enterprises v. Reno, 230 F.3d 365 (D.C. Cir. 2000).
DEVELOPMENT OF FEDERAL CASE LAW
• Rather than focusing on the equipment itself, the courts adopted the following 2-step analysis for game classification issues, which provided the guidance missing from the 1992 regulations: • Is it a Class II game under IGRA – i.e., does it meet the statutory criteria for a Class II game? • If so, is it a technological aid to a Class II game or a Class III electronic/electromechanical facsimile?
12
Made with FlippingBook - professional solution for displaying marketing and sales documents online