I did some reading on the recent decision by the appeals court on the constitutionality of the UIGEA. The decision is found at
http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/081981p.pdf
The court ruled in several places that the plaintiff, the Interactive Media Entertainment and Gaming Association (IMEGA) did not have standing. Standing simply means that you have to be the injured party in order to sue. In some suits this problem is remedied by forming a coalition of plaintiffs, which IMEGA apparently did not do. If the PPA was listed as a named plaintiff, even without participation of PPA resources, then the IMEGA would have prevailed on the standing issues.
The main point of the suit was that the UIGEA was unconstitutionally vague. The court seems to have correctly ruled that the law itself is very clear in it's language. The court ruled that any vagueness would exist in the state laws the UIGEA assists.
While I have joked about unconstitutional vagueness in the past due to congress critters and reporters seemingly not knowing what the law actually says, I'd say the vagueness lies in the promulgation of rules from the Federal Reserve. They fail to define what "illegal gambling" is. I was surprised to see no mention of this in the decision.
The decision also does not mention any claim that the government has abdicated the details of the law to third party actors, the banks, through promulgation of rules from the Federal Reserve. Basically the UIGEA is allowing private parties to define what is illegal. I'm assuming the IMEGA did not make this argument.
Anyway it is interesting reading and is now part of judiciary law.