DFS under PASPA was not at issue in CA3, neither argued by parties nor decided by court. SCOTUS won't take this issue up. https://twitter.com/wallachlegal/status/784046042727591937 …
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @Grange95
was definitely raised in briefs and in opinion in Christie I and briefly came up in en banc argument.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @WALLACHLEGAL
DFS was NOT in CA3 opinions as an issue. Don't recall DFS as a stated issue in any briefs.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Grange95
its in christie 1 as unclean hands argued by NJTHA and discussed (and rejected as meritless) in opinion
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @WALLACHLEGAL
SCOTUS only looks at Christie II for this cert petition. Won't grant an issue not decided by CA3 in en band decision.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Grange95
DFS issue also part of Christie 2 decision at federal district court. Just checked.
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
1/ "The dispositive legal issue ... as NJTHA conceded at oral argument ... is whether the 2014 Law is ... preempted by PASPA."
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.