Share 
State of Play’s TL;DR
- A New Jersey appeals court has ruled that a gambler who voluntarily chose lifetime self-exclusion from the state’s casinos cannot later undo that decision.
- The panel said any effect on out-of-state casinos was a collateral consequence, not grounds to rescind the agreement.
A gambler in New Jersey who voluntarily signed up for lifetime self-exclusion from the state’s casinos cannot change that decision, a NJ appeals court has ruled.
The court said the ban is not affected by the gambler’s decision to enter casinos outside the state.
The decision affirms earlier rulings by the Casino Control Commission and the Division of Gaming Enforcement in a case involving a petitioner identified as S.D.
Court says gambling is not a protected right
According to the case summary, S.D. selected New Jersey’s lifetime voluntary self-exclusion option on July 26, 2004, then sought removal less than a month later. He argued that he meant only to bar himself from New Jersey casinos and did not understand the ban could affect access to casinos outside the state.
New Jersey regulators denied both his request to be removed from the list and his alternative request to be shifted to the one-year list. The appeals court upheld those decisions.
In the majority opinion, Judge Francine Axelrad wrote that “S.D. voluntarily relinquished whatever right he had to participate in gaming activities in New Jersey when he placed himself on the lifetime (list) as a self-professed ‘problem gambler.'”
She added that any impact on visits to some casinos outside New Jersey “is not a material element of the New Jersey agreement; it falls squarely in the category of an indirect collateral consequence.”
The panel also rejected the argument that the ban infringed on a protected right, stating that gambling “is not a constitutionally protected activity.“
Out-of-state casinos can decide whether to adopt ban
New Jersey has two exclusion systems: an involuntary list created in 1977 and a voluntary self-exclusion list created in 2001. The voluntary program offers one-year, five-year, and lifetime options.
A key issue in the case was that New Jersey casinos may share the voluntary self-exclusion list with sister properties outside the state, which can then decide whether to apply the ban. While the original election form did not clearly spell out that out-of-state possibility, the court said regulators acted properly when they later revised the form after recognizing the ambiguity.
Former Casino Control Commission Chair Linda Kassekert said the ruling protected the purpose of the program.
“Clearly, the value of the self-exclusion program would have been compromised if someone who signed up for a lifetime exclusion were able to remove himself just because no one told him other casinos would exclude him as well.”
Attorney Gerard Quinn, who represented S.D., warned the outcome could discourage future signups.
Based on reporting by Law.com.
