Summary
The Washington Supreme Court considered whether RCW 9.46.240, which bans the knowing transmission and reception of gambling information over the Internet, violates the dormant Commerce Clause. The court held that Congress had not expressly authorized state regulation of interstate Internet gambling, but concluded that the Washington statute was nondiscriminatory and that its burden on interstate commerce was not clearly excessive in relation to legitimate state interests. The court affirmed the statute's constitutionality.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Congress expressly authorized Washington to regulate interstate Internet gambling, thereby removing the statute from dormant Commerce Clause scrutiny.
- Whether RCW 9.46.240 discriminates against interstate commerce in favor of in-state economic interests by prohibiting Internet gambling while permitting certain brick-and-mortar gambling activities.
- If RCW 9.46.240 is nondiscriminatory, whether the burden it imposes on interstate commerce is clearly excessive in relation to Washington's legitimate interest in protecting the health, welfare, safety, and morals of its citizens.
Holdings
- Congress did not unmistakably and expressly delegate to the states authority to regulate interstate Internet gambling without regard to the dormant Commerce Clause. The dormant Commerce Clause therefore applies to RCW 9.46.240.
- RCW 9.46.240 does not discriminate against interstate commerce in either its language or its direct effect because it prohibits Internet gambling equally regardless of the location or origin of the entity conducting it.
- RCW 9.46.240 does not violate the dormant Commerce Clause because Washington has a legitimate and substantial interest in addressing the health, welfare, safety, and moral concerns associated with Internet gambling, and the burden on interstate commerce is not clearly excessive in relation to that interest.
Key quotations
“The only issue before this court is whether Washington’s ban on Internet gambling is an unconstitutional infringement of the dormant commerce clause.” (75)
“Congress has not delegated to the states its authority to regulate interstate Internet gambling.” (78)
“Purchasing substitute goods and services does not constitute direct discriminatory effects.” (81)
“RCW 9.46.240 does not violate the dormant commerce clause.” (92)
Factual background
Lee Rousso, a Washington resident, had played poker online and wished to do so again. Washington law criminalized the knowing transmission and receipt of gambling information through the Internet, effectively banning Internet gambling in the state. The statute applied without regard to whether the Internet gambling business was located in Washington, elsewhere in the United States, or abroad.
Procedural history
Lee Rousso filed an action for declaratory judgment asserting that Washington's prohibition on Internet gambling unconstitutionally burdened interstate and international commerce. The trial court granted the State summary judgment and held RCW 9.46.240 constitutional. The Court of Appeals affirmed, and the Washington Supreme Court granted review and affirmed.