Tony Cabot may be a prominemt Vegas gambling lawyer, but he is not a trade lawyer and he is plain wrong on the WTO Appellate decision.
The US did not win on the morals clause. It's called Article XIV and it is a two pronged test. While the appellate body found that the US does have a right to have these laws to protect public morals, the existence of the IHA alone means that they can not claim a moral exemption. As long as they offer remote gambling in the US, they can not fall back on Article XIV.
Read the decision, the Appellate Body ordered the US to bring the Wire Act, the Illegal Gaming Business Act, and the Wire Act into compliance with the GATS.
If the Kyl bill is passed as you describe it, it only makes Antigua's WTO case stronger. If they bless online casino games within states, then the US can hardly claim a moral aversion to remote gambling.
The US can do one of two things to comply with the WTO decision. Allow Antiguan operators free access to the US markets or eliminate all remote gambling in the US, something I don't think they will do.
You can sit here, having not read the decision and make blanket statements that the US will do what it wants to do, and that may happen. I will say Antigua has some options in its arsenal beyond trade sanctions which I will not mention here for strategic reasons.
As far as bringing another case, I don't believe the UK can act alone in the WTO, only as part of the EU. I know in the Antigua case the EU was one of the parties that filed amicus briefs with Antigua at both the lower panel and appellate level.
I will tell you who may bring another case and that is Antigua. All of the hard legal work is done. It is without argument that:
1. The US has made commitments
2. Article XVI applies
3. The US does have measures in place that interfere with Antigua's access (Something they actually tried to deny.)
Which leaves Article XIV, the morals exemption. Any argument purely on Article XIV would be a very factual argument. The appellate body gave Antigua a beautiful road map how to win this case grand slam style the second time around. All of those issues above that the US vigorously opposed the first time are now settled WTO law.
All that would be left for the US to argue is their morals and they would fail miserably. Everyday Antigua's case only gets stronger. In any second pass Antigua would also vigorously spell out every state law that was summarily rejected for not being argued forcefully enough the first time. Not that they need to argue the state stuff because of some federal principle that federal trumps state, but just for sport.
Antigua presented plenty of alternatives to an outright ban. Read the briefs. Why the Appellate Body chose to act like they were not there is beyond me.
Bottom line is you can't claim a moral aversion to an activity when your domestic providers offer the same activity. And by activity I mean remote gambling, that's what the panel made it. Not sports, or poker, or casino, or horses, just remote gambling, they consider it all the same.
As to Kyl, yes I've seen the scum try to amend his garbage to must pass bills, but he has always had a bill out there in the first place. And the Indians have a lot of pull, without their exemption it may not carry. Plus I think a lot of people are tired of Kyls's routine already.
But we'll see. Like I said it only makes Antigua's case stronger if it passes as you described it.