Judge Paul Barbadoro’s ruling comes in response to a suit filed by the New Hampshire Lottery Commission, which said a Justice Department opinion issued last year subjects its employees to prosecution, creates uncertainty about whether it should cease operations and could cost the state more than US$ 90 million a year.

Data gathered by The Associated Press shows states would have been at risk of losing US$ 220 million in net profits annually if the Justice Department had targeted single tickets sold online or more than US$ 23 billion under the broadest interpretation that would have prohibited all lottery-related activities that use the internet, including popu lar games like Powerball.

“Today’s ruling is a historic victory for the State of New Hampshire and we are proud to have led this effort,” Gov. Chris Sununu said in a statement. “New Hampshire stood up, took action, and won – all to protect public education in our state.”

A spokesman for the Justice Department said it “is reviewing the decision and declines to comment further at this time.” Matthew D. McGill, who represented the NeoPollard, Interactive, which operates the state’s online lottery, said the ruling will not be limited to New Hampshire. Michigan, New Jersey and Pennsylvania filed friend-of-the court briefs in this case.

“Because the court ‘set aside’ the Justice Department’s incorrect re-interpretation of the Wire Act, this ruling has nationwide impact,” he said in a statement. “Throughout the country, state lotteries and others in the gaming industry once again can rely on the Justice Department’s 2011 opinion that the Wire Act is limited to sport s betting.”

But the Coalition to Stop Internet Gambling, which is backed by GOP megadonor Sheldon Adelson and filed an amicus brief in support of the Justice Department in the case, argued the ruling was limited and would likely be appealed.

“While we disagree with many of the views expressed in Judge Barbadoro’s ruling, we are happy that the scope of the opinion was confined to the parties involved,” the group said in a statement. “We are confident that other jurisdictions will see this issue very differently and our resolve to protect at-risk populations has only been strengthened by today’s decision.”

The case revolves around the Wire Act, a 1961 law meant to target the mob that prohibits interstate wagering. Decades later and with the internet ruling everyone’s lives, New York and Illinois asked the Obama administration whether selling lottery tickets online violated the law.

The department in 2011 concluded that online gambling within states that does not involve sporting events would not break the law. But the agency changed its mind in November, interpreting the act as applying to any form of gambling that crosses state lines, not just sports betting. Some feared that, if strictly interpreted, that opinion would outlaw lottery tickets sold online and prohibit all lottery-related activities that use the internet.

That raised concerns about the viability of online poker and other gambling across states, as well as state lotteries. Money from lotteries typically funds a variety of programs, from education to senior citizen services.

In February, New Jersey and Pennsylvania asked the Justice Department to withdraw the Wire Act decision, saying the opinion was “wrong” and an “unfounded about face” that “undermines the values of federalism.”

New Jersey also filed a Freedom of Information Request (FOIA) seeking records pertaining to the Justice Department’s opinion and communications between the agency that involved Las Vegas Sands and the casino company’s lobbyists. The casino operator, through Adelson, its chairman and CEO, has long sought to ban online wagering, funding the coalition. Adelson, 85, No. 15 on the Forbes 400 with a net worth of US$ 34.2 billion has long vowed to spend millions to kill Internet gambling. Adelson believes the activity will diminish results at traditional casinos and could lead to increased problem gambling issues and underage gambling.

The Wall Street Journal reported the legal reasoning behind the Wire Act reversal came from an April 2017 memo drafted by the Sands’ lobbyists. The memo, according to the report, was sent to top Justice Department officials in April 2017 and made a case that the 2011 opinion on the Wire Act by the DOJ was in error.

On Monday, Barbadoro said New Hampshire had the standing to sue and that the Wire Act was limited to sports gambling.

“The Government challenges this conclusion by arguing that the likelihood that the plaintiffs will face prosecution under the Wire Act is low, because the 2018 OLC Opinion does not explicitly conclude that state agencies, state employees, and state vendors are subject to prosecution under the Act,” Barbadorowrote in his 60-page  decision. I reject this argument because the record tells a different story.”

Much of his argument came down to the interpretation of the language in the Wire Act, with the judge agreeing with the commission and the 2011 ruling that the law was meant for sports betting even though one clause only mentioned bets and wagers. The Justice Department argued the fact this clause didn’t mention sports betting by name meant the law could be interpreted more broadly.

The judge also sided with the commission in determining it was at risk of potential prosecution, rejecting the Justice Department’s request to dismiss the lawsuit. The Justice Department had filed a memo in the case suggesting that its opinion didn’t address state lot teries and that it was in the process of determining whether the Wire Act applied. It said federal prosecutors had been advised not to enforce the November opinion until a decision was made.

But the state argued the prosecutions would still be possible and argued further delays in the case could complicate the state’s budget process, since a key source of revenue comes from lottery revenues.