Casinos and Supreme Court Justices

With hearings underway on the appointment of Judge Samuel Alito to the U.S. Supreme Court, gaming industry lawyers may wish to review his opinion in Hakimoglu v. Trump Taj Mahal Associates, 70 F.3d 291 (3d Cir. 1995).  The plaintiff in that case claimed that the casino should return gambling losses suffered after it was obvious that he was intoxicated. Writing for a 2-1 majority, Judge Alito ruled that New Jersey law would not afford the plaintiff any recovery. In reaching that decision, he stressed that New Jersey has limited dram shop liability, and also that the state’s extensive casino regulation would likely preempt any court-imposed liability for allowing intoxicated persons to gamble. Judge Alito’s holding also was influenced by “problems of proof and causation” presented by the plaintiff’s claim, including the risk that such claims will be fabricated.

Although compulsive gambling claims seem unlikely to reach the high court any time soon – indeed, no appellate court has ruled in favor of a plaintiff yet – Judge Alito’s previous exposure to the issue seems a positive. Indeed, the New Jersey resident’s familiarity with that state’s casino industry may reconcile those who had welcomed the gaming experience of Harriet Miers, the withdrawn appointee, a former regulator of the Texas lottery.