How a Statute Enacted in Great Britain under Queen Anne Made Its Way to the D.C. Code

In 2019, the D.C. Council legalized sports betting by enacting the Sports Wagering Lottery Amendment Act of 2018. Washington, D.C. was one of several jurisdictions to amend its laws related to sports betting after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned a 1992 law prohibiting these wagers in Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Association.

While the D.C. Council created a framework for regulating sports betting in 2019, laws allowing gamblers to sue to recover their losses, which have been in the D.C. Code since 1963, remained in effect. These code provisions (§ 16–1701, § 16–1702, and § 16–1703) are the subject of a lawsuit filed earlier this year by a group seeking to recoup funds lost on sports wagers. Under D.C. Code section § 16–1702, anyone who loses more than $25 during a bet may file a lawsuit within three months to recover losses. After three months have passed, the law allows “any person [to] sue for, and recover treble the value of the money, goods, chattels, and other things, with costs of suit, by a civil action against the winner, one-half to the use of the plaintiff, the remainder to the use of the District of Columbia.” (D.C. Code § 16–1702.)

An interesting wrinkle in this story is that we can trace the lineage of these code sections to “An act for the better preventing of excessive and deceitful Gaming,” a statute enacted in Great Britain in 1710, during Queen Anne’s reign. You may be wondering how exactly a law from the waning days of the Stuart period became part of the D.C. Code. The answer is somewhat complicated and requires a brief history lesson and a review of several legal resources.

The Adoption of English Common Law and Statutes in the American Colonies

During the American colonial era, English colonies were formed along the Atlantic coast. These colonies operated under charters approved by the English sovereign, which outlined the rights and responsibilities of colonists. These charters generally allowed the colonies to form their own governments, courts, and ordinances. (See, e.g., the 1632 Charter of Maryland at §§ VII and VIII.)

Although the monarch approved these charters and maintained sovereign rule over the colonies until American independence, “the common law and acts of Parliament in force in England at the time of the settlement of each colony were not considered as automatically brought by the settlers to that colony.” (Brown, p. 13.) As a result, the colonies adopted their preferred English common law principles and statutes through local ordinances, legislation, or court decisions. The process for adopting English laws varied considerably by jurisdiction. (Brown, pp. 23-46.)

Maryland’s Approach to Adopting Acts of Parliament

In 1776, Maryland adopted its Declaration of Rights, which implemented both the common law of England and many English statutes, including those that were in effect during the first emigration of colonists to Maryland and “all acts of assembly in force on the first of June, seventeen hundred and seventy-four[.]” (Art. 5.(a).) Although English statutes were a source of law, Maryland courts had considerable discretion in determining whether these statutes were in effect. (Brown, pp. 96-98.) Because Maryland judges were frequently asked to determine whether English statutes were applicable in Maryland, in 1809, the Maryland legislature sought clarity and requested that the court chancellor and judges of the Court of Appeals write a report on English statutes applicable in Maryland.

Chancellor of Maryland William Kilty issued his report in 1810. Kilty divided his report into three parts, the third of which addressed “statutes which have been found applicable and are proper to be introduced and incorporated” into Maryland law. Among these applicable statutes is one titled “An act for the better preventing of excessive and deceitful gaming.” Kilty’s report describes this law, but a full text is available in a later compilation of British statutes that were in force in Maryland.

The District of Columbia is Created and Adopts Maryland and Virginia Laws

Washington, D.C. and its basic governing mechanics were formed through a series of federal statutes enacted in the late 18th and early 19th centuries. Congress formally organized the District of Columbia in the Organic Act of 1801, ch. 15, 2 Stat. 103 (Feb. 28, 1801). That law divided the District into two counties; the county of Washington was on the Maryland side of the Potomac River, and the county of Alexandria was located on the Virginia side. (Organic Act of 1801, sec. 2.)

While these counties formed one district, the statute provided, “the laws of the state of Virginia, as they now exist, shall be and continue in force in that part of the District of Columbia, which was ceded by [Virginia] … and that the laws of the state of Maryland, as they now exist, shall and continue in force in that part of the said district, which was ceded by [Maryland] ….” (Organic Act of 1801, sec. 1). Put another way, “the accumulated laws of Maryland and Virginia as they existed as of 1801 would continue in force in the respective portions of the District ceded by these states.” (Acosta, p. 222.)

Through the framework listed in the Organic Act of 1801, Washington, D.C. adopted by reference the 1710 British statute “An act for the better preventing of excessive and deceitful gaming.” A federal statute in 1901 reaffirmed Washington, D.C.’s adoption of Maryland laws in 1801 (ch. 854, 31 Stat. 1189, § 1 (Mar. 3, 1901)), including the “common law [and] all British statutes in force in Maryland on February 27, 1801[.]” This statute has a corresponding provision in the current D.C. Code at § 45–401.

The Current and Future Status of These D.C. Code Provisions

D.C. Code §§ 16–1701, 16–1702, and 16–1703 were added to the D.C. Code through a federal statute codifying laws regarding judicial procedure in 1963. (Pub. L. No. 88-241, 77 Stat. 478, 582-583 (Dec. 23, 1963).) They have not been amended significantly since that time. While the language in the modern D.C. Code provisions differs significantly from the ancestor English statute that was enacted in 1710, if you take a moment to look at these laws side-by-side, you will spot several similarities.

In response to the lawsuit I referenced at the start of this post, the D.C. Council is amending § 16–1702 through B26-0265, a budget package that is currently pending final approval. (See engrossed bill, p. 24, sec. 2062.)

While this law may be amended soon, many other laws derived from the English common law and old statutes remain valid in Washington, D.C., and across several states. To learn more about this topic, I recommend consulting the sources below:

• Luis Acosta (2005). District of Columbia. In Michael Chiorazzi & Marguerite Most (Eds.), Prestatehood Legal Materials: A Fifty-state Research Guide, Including New York City and the District of Columbia. Haworth Information Press.
• Elizabeth Gaspar Brown (1964). British Statutes in American Law, 1776-1836. University of Michigan Law School.
• Archives of Maryland Online
• Locating British Statutes, University of Chicago Library