In a massive petition filed on Tuesday, attorneys for Lawrence DiCristina, the Staten Island man charged with violating the Illegal Gambling Business Act of 1970, are requesting a hearing on the issue in front of the United States Supreme Court. The case centers in part on whether poker is a skill game.

The document, a “petition for a writ of certiorari,” provides compelling arguments that DiCristina’s attorneys have presented in court previously. From the outset of the petition, his legal team argued that IGBA, which was a part of the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970, doesn’t apply to poker because it isn’t expressly mentioned in the language of the statute. “Using this anti-Mafia statute, Federal prosecutors have targeted low-profile poker games with no connection to organized crime,” the petition stated. “This case is a prime example.”

IGBA, DiCristina’s attorneys state, prohibits involvement in certain “gambling businesses,” that include lotteries, slots, dice, and sports betting. The statute, as noted by the lawyers, covers gaming activities that are recognized as “games of chance.” “Poker, by contrast,” the attorneys wrote, “is not a game of chance. It is, instead, a game of skill – that is, one in which players’ skill levels predominantly determine outcomes.”

According to the document, DiCristina’s legal team believes that a Supreme Court review is needed for two reasons. “The panel’s conclusion that state law alone defines the offense conflicts with the ‘uniform Federal definition‘ doctrine,” they wrote.

In addition, DiCristina’s attorneys contend, the Second Circuit did not give DiCristina an opportunity to present his position during the proceedings.

The second point for appeal is that the Second Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision has created a division in the court system as to how to interpret “including but not limited to” clauses in Federal regulations.

The DiCristina case dates back to 2011, when Federal agents raided DiCristina’s private business and found a two-table poker room set up in the back. After originally deciding to plead guilty to the charges, DiCristina instead decided to fight in the court system. In late 2011, he was convicted of violating IGBA by operating an illegal gambling business. Under IGBA statutes, an illegal gambling business is one that violates state law, brings in more than $2,000 per day, and/or is running for more than 30 days.

DiCristina appealed that ruling and, in August 2012, Judge Jack Weinstein of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York heard the case. In issuing his decision to overturn DiCristina’s conviction, Judge Weinstein agreed with DiCristina’s lawyers that IGBA was “ambiguous” in its definition of games that violate the law, which depends heavily on state laws. He also agreed with DiCristina’s appeal on the grounds that poker was a game of skill and, as such, DiCristina wasn’t operating a gambling business.

In August, a three-member panel of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, headed by Circuit Judge Chester Straub, reinstated the conviction on the grounds that IGBA was not ambiguous in its definition. “Because we find no such ambiguity, we decline to limit the statute’s reach beyond its plain terms,” the panel wrote in their decision.

The 223-page document filed by DiCristina’s legal team is basically the first step in asking for the U.S. Supreme Court to review the decisions of the lower District Courts. These petitions in a given judicial year for the Supreme Court can number into the thousands; typically, the Supreme Court only selects about 100 cases for review. There are normally two outcomes for a writ such as this: 1) the Supreme Court can decide to hear the case, at which time they will issue a “writ of certiorari” and schedule a hearing, or 2) the Supreme Court can deny the petition and the lower court decision stands.

Want the latest poker headlines and interviews? Follow PocketFives on Twitterand Like PocketFives on Facebook. You can also subscribe to our RSS feed.