Indian Gaming Regulatory Act
The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (Pub.L. 100-497, 25 U.S.C. ยง 2701 et seq.) is a 1988 United States federal law that establishes the jurisdictional framework that governs Indian gaming. There was no federal gaming structure before this act. The stated purposes of the act include providing a legislative basis for the operation/regulation of Indian gaming, protecting gaming as a means of generating revenue for the tribes, encouraging economic development of these tribes, and protecting the enterprises from negative influences (such as organized crime). The law established the National Indian Gaming Commission and gave it a regulatory mandate. The law also delegated new authority to the U.S. Department of the Interior and created new federal offenses, giving the U.S. Department of Justice authority to prosecute them.
The law has been the source of extensive controversy and litigation. One of the key questions is whether the National Indian Gaming Commission and Department of Interior can be effective in regulating tribal economic decisions related to Indian gaming. Some in Congress are in favor of greater regulation, while a prominent professor in the field is skeptical that such regulation is effective. Many of the controversies have produced litigation, some of it reaching the U.S. Supreme Court.
Read more about Indian Gaming Regulatory Act: History, FBI Jurisdiction, The Industry, Economic and Social Impacts of The IGRA, Tribal Sovereignty, Opposition To The IGRA, Proposed Changes To IGRA
Famous quotes containing the words indian, gaming and/or act:
“Thus you have an Indian availing himself cunningly of the advantages of civilization, without losing any of his woodcraft, but proving himself the more successful hunter for it.”
—Henry David Thoreau (1817–1862)
“Sir, I do not call a gamester a dishonest man; but I call him an unsocial man, an unprofitable man. Gaming is a mode of transferring property without producing any intermediate good.”
—Samuel Johnson (1709–1784)
“... whatever men do or know or experience can make sense only to the extent that it can be spoken about. There may be truths beyond speech, and they may be of great relevance to man in the singular, that is, to man in so far as he is not a political being, whatever else he may be. Men in the plural, that is, men in so far as they live and move and act in this world, can experience meaningfulness only because they can talk with and make sense to each other and to themselves.”
—Hannah Arendt (1906–1975)