Larry Flynt’s battle against the gambling laws in California has finally received support from the judicial system, despite the fact that he was unsuccessful in his initial court challenge in 2017. According to the statutes, a person who owns and manages a casino within the state of California is not permitted to run another business of the same kind anywhere else in the country. On the other hand, Flynt and a number of other casino operators think that this way of thinking is not only contrary to the Constitution but also out of date.
In 2017, Flynt, the proprietor of the Lucky Lady Casino and the Hustler Casino in California, as well as the originator of the well-known publication Hustler magazine, initiated the initial round of his legal battles. He was unsuccessful in the first stage of the process because the state argued that the time restriction for submitting a petition to have the law overturned had already elapsed. Since the laws were first enacted in 1986, this can be considered to be true in some respects. However, the current line of thinking is that these statutes violate the Constitution in their existing form.
Casino Law Is Unconstitutional
The regulations governing casino ownership in California came into existence as part of an effort to thwart the expansion of organized crime into the state. Mob leaders’ ability to build multi-state organizations was facilitated, in part, by their ownership of and operation of casinos in multiple states; nevertheless, California was adamant that it not be allowed. Flynt’s primary argument against this is that the laws enable the state to violate people’s constitutional rights and act in a way that is inconsistent with its obligations. They are, in effect, blocking Flynt from expanding his company and bringing in more money.
This opinion is shared by more than just the leader of the Hustler gang. His complaint was joined by his father and his son, Haig Kelegian Sr. and Haig Kelegian Jr., who are the proprietors of the Crystal Casino, which is also located in California. This year, the group pursued their case all the way to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and when they got there, they discovered that the laws of the country were finally on their side. Flynt was granted the authority to challenge the laws of California by a court panel by a decision of 2-1.
Flynt asserts that he has lost millions of dollars.
Once the rules are changed, which may take some more time, it is possible that Flynt will spread his activities throughout the country. He claimed that representatives from a number of well-established casinos in a variety of states, including Louisiana, Colorado, and Nevada, had already contacted him. Unfortunately for him, he is unable to accept any of these offers while the ownership statute in California is still in effect. Flynt, in the course of providing commentary on this topic, has asserted that the statute in question has prohibited him from possibly earning millions of dollars from new business initiatives.