@Professor 156213 wrote:
1.The Judge ruled on the case, it wasnt dismissed. That meant the argument had legal merit. This is very useful for future actions.[/quote]
The judge ruled on a number of points brought up in the case. One was that iMEGA had standing to appeal.The remainder were dismissed because iMEGA did not have standing, or the issue was not within her jurisdiction.
Quote:2. When a Judge rules on a case is provides LEGAL PRECEDENCE that a US Court to the position that UIGEA was enforcable ONLY in the states where it was already illegal. This could potentially be huge in future actions/cases and it affirms what many had already contended in regards to application of UIEGA.I assume you mean “ONLY in the states where online gambling was already illegal”. I am not sure where you drew this conclusion from. The judge said that UIGEA was legally enacted. On the issue of the 10th Amendment, however, she said that iMEGA was NOT a legitimate plaintiff since this would require a state affected by the enactment of UIGEA to file a complaint (and thus iMEGA could not mount a challenge on this point).
iMEGA won nothing but the right to appeal her decision in an appeals court.
Quote:I disagree that this was a small or meaningless victory. Every battle won leads to eventual victory of a war.
This was not a battle won, not by any stretch of the imagination. This was a battle where the vanquished said “I live to fight another day”.
Having said that, I would love to see iMEGA mount a serious challenge which brings UIGEA’s validity into a dubious state. But I’m not holding my breath based on the weakness of their first challenge.