Court reinstates suit challenging video poker ban
Original action had contended that state law violated due process
RICHMOND, Va. — A divided federal appeals court reinstated on Wednesday a lawsuit challenging South Carolina's law banning video poker.
A three-judge panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed U.S. District Court Judge David Norton's ruling in Charleston that Jimmy Martin's lawsuit did not belong in federal court.
South Carolina's legislature amended the state's gambling laws in 1999 to bar video poker machines and allow police to seize such devices and bring them to a county magistrate, who orders them destroyed if they are found to be illegal.
Martin, the owner of a business called Lucky Strike LLC, claimed the law violates the Constitution's due process and equal protection clauses because it is vague and provides no means for determining a machine's legality before it is seized.
In dismissing the lawsuit, Norton relied on a legal principle that allows federal courts to avoid intruding on complex state administrative processes or disrupting state efforts to establish a coherent policy on a matter of substantial public concern.
The appeals court's majority ruled that the federal interest in resolving Martin's constitutional challenge trumps the state's interests.
"Courts must balance the state and federal interests to determine whether the importance of difficult state law questions or the state interest in uniform regulation outweighs the federal interest in adjudicating the case at bar," Judge Diana Gribbon Motz wrote.
She added that the balance rarely favors abstention by the federal court.
Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III wrote in a dissenting opinion that the dispute was best left to the state.
"The majority deprives the state of a significant measure of control over issues touching not simply the pros and cons of gambling but the very tone and quality of life within state borders," he wrote.
However, the majority said Martin had a right to seek relief in federal court.
"Martin chose to file his claims in a federal forum created by Congress — we cannot deny him that choice even if we disagree with it," Motz wrote.
Motz was joined in the majority opinion by Judge William Traxler Jr.
E-mail this story 
Printer-friendly version
Notice about comments:
The Post and Courier is pleased to offer readers the ability to comment on stories. We expect our readers to engage in lively, yet civil discourse. The Post and Courier does not edit user submitted statements and we cannot promise that readers will not occasionally find offensive or inaccurate comments posted in the comments area. Responsibility for the statements posted lies with the person submitting the comment, not postandcourier.com. If you find a comment that is objectionable, please click "suggest removal" and we will review it for possible removal. Please be reminded, however, that in accordance with our Terms of Use and federal law, we are under no obligation to remove any third party comments posted on our Web site.
Full terms and conditions can be read here.
Comments
This article has 0 comment(s)
