Case: 25-7504, 01/16/2026, DktEntry: 38.1, Page 17 of 47
965 (9th Cir. 2018). Instead, it prevents people from “using the internet to circumvent existing state and federal gambling laws.” Id. at 965. In particular, UIGEA seeks to “suffocate [illegal] internet gambling by re- moving its oxygen source, specifically, the funding of online gambling accounts.” Holden et al., supra , at 1396. To that end, the statute bars any person or entity “engaged in the business of betting or wagering” from knowingly accepting or transmitting payment or credit “in connec- tion with . . . unlawful Internet gambling.” 31 U.S.C. § 5363. The stat- ute defines “unlawful Internet gambling” by reference to existing federal and state law as a “bet or wager” that is “unlawful under any applicable Federal or State law in the State or Tribal lands in which the bet or wager is initiated, received, or otherwise made.” Id. § 5362(10)(A). By its plain terms, UIGEA does not affect the substance of under- lying state or federal law. See 31 U.S.C. § 5361(b) (“No provision of [UI- GEA] shall be construed as altering, limiting, or extending any Federal or State law or Tribal-State compact prohibiting, permitting, or regulat- ing gambling within the United States.”). That noninterference with ex- isting law specifically extends to IGRA: UIGEA expressly provides that “[n]o provision of [UIGEA’s civil remedies] section shall be construed as
9
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs