Kentucky Strikes Back with Supreme Court Online Gambling Brief
Attorneys representing the Commonwealth of Kentucky filed a response before the state Supreme Court in the online gambling domain name seizure case one day late. Having missed the deadline for submitting the filing, which was Wednesday, by a day led to questions by the court as to the reason for the delay in the Internet casino case.
The Motion for Enlargement which would permit the tardy filing basically gave the state's excuse for the filing's late arrival as: the assignment was real hard and we kinda thought it was due today, sorry. The motion mentioned the number of parties involved, which should be no surprise considering the 141 online casinos attacked in the initial order, and said it had "calculated a due date for the filing of a Reply Brief in this action on Thursday, June 18th.”
The court will now review the briefs and decide whether the case merits further judicial review. If not, the verdict at the appellate level will stand, and the order dismissed. If the court wishes to hear further argument and consider the state's points, it will set a hearing date.
The state's brief argues the state had jurisdiction and standing to bring the civil case against the online gambling operators. It asks justices to be creative with judicial review, seeking the intent of the legislature rather than a literal interpretation of the wording, even though lawmakers attempt to be precise to avoid exactly such flexible enforcement of statutes.
The brief also uses the Washington state verdict against Lee Rousso and online poker as precedent, saying the court determined the state could honor an overwhelming need to protect citizens (from online gambling) while causing minor harm to out-of-state commerce. But legal experts say that was a validation of a specific Washington law, not an excuse for the Governor to create his own laws.
