Advertisement

Journal of Gambling Studies

, Volume 8, Issue 4, pp 383–399 | Cite as

The future of Indian gaming

  • I. Nelson Rose
Articles

Abstract

The legal right for Native Americans to administer gambling on their land provides them with probably the most profitable opportunity currently available to generate tribal income. The federal Indian Gaming Regulatory Act which guarantees this right is frequently invoked in instances where Indian gaming is competitive with state or private commercial gambling interests. This article examines multiple aspects of the competitive conflicts which arise and provides some speculation about the future of Indian gaming.

Keywords

Multiple Aspect Profitable Opportunity Commercial Gambling Indian Gaming Gaming Regulatory 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. California v. Cabazon Band of Mission Indians, (1987). 480 U.S. 202.Google Scholar
  2. Christiansen, Eugene M. (1990). 1989 Gross Wager.Gaming & Wagering Business, 11, August, pp. 9–31.Google Scholar
  3. Congressional Record (1988). S 12650 (Sept. 15).Google Scholar
  4. Eadington, William R. (ed.) (1990).Indian gaming and the law. Reno: Institute for the Study of Gambling, University of Nevada.Google Scholar
  5. Lac du Flambeau Band v. Williquette, (1986). 629 F.Supp. 689 (W.D.Wis.).Google Scholar
  6. Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians v. Wisconsin, (1990). 743 F. Supp. 645 (D.Wis.)Google Scholar
  7. Mashantucket Pequot Tribe v. Slate of Connecticut, (1990). 737 F.Supp. 169 (D.Conn.),affirmed. 913 F.2d 1024 (2nd Cir. 1990),cert. denied 111 S.Ct. 1620 (1991).Google Scholar
  8. Oneida Tribe of Indians of Wisconsin v. State of Wisconsin, (1990). 742 F.Supp. 1033 (W.D.Wis.).Google Scholar
  9. Public Law 100-497 (Oct. 17, 1988) 102 Stat. 2467; 25 U.S.C.SS2701-2721, 18 U.S.C.SS1166–1168. Also known as IGRA.Google Scholar
  10. Public Law 83-280 (Aug. 15, 1953) 67 Stat. 588, 589; 18 U.S.C.S1162, 28 U.S.C.S1360 (as amended).Google Scholar
  11. Pueblo of Santa Ana v. Hodel, (1987). 663 F.Supp. 1300 (D.D.C.).Google Scholar
  12. Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians v. Brown, (1990). 740 F.Supp. 169 (D.C.D.C.),affd. 928 F.2d 467 (C.A.D.C. 1991).Google Scholar
  13. Report 100-446, (1988). Calendar No. 862 at p. 9 (100th Cong. 2d Ses.) (Aug. 3).Google Scholar
  14. Rose, I. Nelson (1990). The Indian Gaming Act and the political process. In Eadington, William R. (Ed.),Indian gaming & the law. (pp. 3–14). Reno: Institute for the Study of Gambling, University of Nevada.Google Scholar
  15. Rose, I. Nelson (1986).Gambling and the law. Los Angeles: Gambling Times, Inc.Google Scholar
  16. Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Butterworth, (1981). 658 F.2d 310 (5th Cir).Google Scholar
  17. Stone v. Mississippi, (1990). 101 U.S. 814, 25 L.Ed. 1079, 1080, quotingPhalen v. Virginia, 8 How. 163, 18, 12 L.Ed. 1030 (1849).Google Scholar
  18. United Keetoowah Bank of Cherokee Indians v. Oklahoma, (1990). 927 F.2d 1170 (10th Cir.).Google Scholar
  19. United States v. Cook, (1991). 922 F.2d 1026 (2d Cir.),petition for cert. denied.Google Scholar
  20. United States v. Sisseton-Wahpeton Sioux Tribe, (1990). 897 F.2d 358 (8th Cir.).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Human Sciences Press, Inc. 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  • I. Nelson Rose
    • 1
  1. 1.Whittier College School of LawLos Angeles

Personalised recommendations