President Barack Obama-nominated, as the next attorney general, Loretta Lynch said that she likely wouldn’t alter the Justice Department’s opinion that the 1961 Wire Act only applies to sports betting.
During a confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary last month, she was asked by Sen. Lindsey Graham, who sponsored the Sheldon Adelson-backed Restore America’s Wire Act (RAWA), whether she was familiar to 2011 Department of Justice opinion to the 1961 Wire Act. Lynch said that she was familiar with the opinion but hadn’t studied in detail.
Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, has reintroduced the “Restoration of America’s Wire Act,” or RAWA, which would restore the effective ban on Internet gambling by rolling back the legal landscape to what it was before the Department of Justice issued its opinion.
In a follow-up written response, Lynch further explains her views to the Senate Judiciary Committee saying that if confirmed, she would review the 2011 memo from the department’s Office of Legal Counsel that reinterpreted the Interstate Wire Act of 1961, the federal law that restricts the transmission of wager information.
“It is my understanding, however that OLC opinions are rarely reconsidered. Unless in the course of my review I conclude that OLC’s interpretation of the Wire Act is unreasonable, I do not intend to take any action to suspend or revoke the opinion. I would, of course, welcome the opportunity to work with you and other Members of Congress to address concerns about online gambling through legislation,” Lynch added.
She was also asked if she thinks it is appropriate for OLC “to effectively open the door for the states to offer Internet gaming without involvement of the Congress, the public, law enforcement, and state and local officials?”
Lynch answered, “OLC exercises the Attorney General’s authority to provide the President and executive agencies with advice on questions of law. Because OLC helps the President fulfill his constitutional obligation to take care that the law be faithfully executed, it is my understanding that the Office strives to provide an objective assessment of the law using traditional tools of statutory interpretation.”