Joe Kelly, Buffalo State business law professor, explains, “Anytime you challenge an act of Congress that doesn’t involve pure political speech, you’ve got an awfully large hill to climb.” He further says, “They (iMEGA) constructed the best argument they could have, but it was an extreme long shot.”

One of the main issues iMEGA’s appeal was centered around, the violation of privacy rights within the UIGEA, was based on two precedent cases: “Reliable Consultants Inc. v. Earle” and “Lawrence v. Texas.” The appeal presented both of these cases as examples of privacy infringement in relation to those brought on by the UIGEA.

Judge Dolores Sloviter wrote, “Interactive’s (iMEGA) reliance on those cases is misplaced. Both Lawrence and Earle involved state laws that barred certain forms of sexual conduct between consenting adults in the privacy of the home. As the Supreme Court explained in Lawrence, such laws touch upon the most private human conduct, sexual behavior, and in the most private of places, the home.”

She went on to explain, “Gambling, even in the home, simply does not involve any individual interests of the same constitutional magnitude. Accordingly, such conduct is not protected by any right to privacy under the constitution.”

Joe Brennan, Jr., who is the chairman of iMEGA, commented in a statement after Judge Sloviter’s ruling was announced, suggesting that there was in fact a silver lining to the ruling. He says, “The court made it clear – gambling on the Internet is unlawful where state law says so. But there are only a half-dozen states which have laws against Internet gambling, leaving 44 states where it is potentially lawful. It’s not perfect, but it’s a good start.”

Brennan also commented that iMEGA has not made a decision yet whether it would try to appeal the ruling.