In a 23-page ruling on the appeal of U.S. v. DiCristina, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has reversed a lower court’s decision, bringing a sharp rebuke from the head of the Poker Players Alliance (PPA).

The three member panel – Senior Circuit JusticeChester Strauband Circuit Judges Peter Halland Denny Chin– released its decision on Tuesday and, in the first paragraph of the court documents, stated, “We hold that the District Court erred in determining that Defendant’s poker business did not fall within the ambit (boundary) of the Illegal Gambling Business Act (IGBA). Accordingly, the order of the District Court is reversed.” Read about oral arguments.

The case dates back to 2010, when Lawrence DiCristinaand his partner Stefano Lombardo allegedly operated a poker club out of the back room of a warehouse in Staten Island, New York. After the game was raided in late 2011, DiCristina and Lombardo originally pleaded guilty to two charges of violating IGBA, but in December of 2011, DiCristina withdrew his guilty plea and decided to fight the charges.

In that trial, DiCristina was originally found guilty, but he filed an appeal to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York to dismiss the case on the grounds that poker didn’t constitute gambling, as it isn’t a game of chance and therefore wasn’t applicable under the definitions of gambling according to IGBA. When that appeal was heard in front of Judge Jack Weinstein in August 2012, Weinstein determined that there was a “skill” element to poker and, as such, IGBA didn’t apply.

The U.S. Attorney’s Office then turned to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. In presenting its case to the three-judge panel, the Federal Government did not attack on the “skill versus luck” argument raised by DiCristina’s attorneys. Instead, the Feds stated that Weinstein “misinterpreted” IGBA. With that misinterpretation, the decision to acquit DiCristina should be overturned and the previous conviction should be reinstated.

The panel seemed to strike on the literal reading of IGBA as well as DiCristina’s previous actions in court. Citing the clause of IGBA that defines what an “illegal gambling business” is and the New York statute that defines a “contest of chance” as “any contest, game, gaming scheme, or gaming device in which the outcome depends in a material degree upon an element of chance, notwithstanding that skill of the contestants may also be a factor therein,” the panel determined that DiCristina had violated the law.

What was violated specifically were the laws of the state, having a business of five people or more who have some involvement with the operation, and operating for more than 30 days consecutively.

“Because we find that the plain language of IGBA includes DiCristina’s poker business, we reverse the judgment of acquittal and remand to the District Court to reinstate the jury verdict, enter a judgment of conviction on both counts, and proceed with sentencing DiCristina,” the decision concluded.

After filing an affidavit as a “friend of the Court,” Executive Director John Pappas(pictured) of the PPA wasn’t pleased with the decision. “Today’s decision by the Second Circuit Court, while unfortunate, only adds to the growing call for Federal clarity on the definition of gambling,” Pappas said in a statement following the decision.

He continued, “The Second Circuit clearly did not dispute the District Court’s finding that poker is a game of skill. This is a key point distinguishing poker from the types of gambling games that Congress and state legislatures have often tried to prohibit. What the court did was conclude that IGBA does not set forth an independent Federal definition of gambling, but instead only incorporates state law.”

“Ample academic studies and judicial rulings at the state and Federal level have concluded that poker is indeed a game of skill, period,” Pappas continued. “The PPA will continue to advocate for a clear, Federal definition of gambling as a game predominated by chance, thus preserving the right of Americans to play this great game of skill. The PPA stands ready to support Mr. DiCristina should he choose to appeal this decision, and we are committed to working through the judicial and legislative processes to establish a clear definition of gambling based on the predominance test.”

Weinstein’s DiCristina ruling was a watershed moment when it was issued, pushing the potential for several court cases across the United States regarding poker to be overturned. It was even mentioned by the members of Full Tilt Poker in their civil cases before eventual settlement of those charges. Where the case will go from here (the next step would be the U.S. Supreme Court) is not known.

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