Gaming Law Commons^™

“Absolute And Arbitrary”: How The Supreme Court’S Certiorari Power Violates The Nondelegation Doctrine, Dinis Cheian

BYU Law Review

The Exceptions Clause of Article III of the Constitution is clear that “Congress” “shall make” the rules prescribing the Court’s “appellate jurisdiction.” And so Congress did for almost 150 years. But in the twentieth century, Congress delegated its power to the Supreme Court in the form of—as Chief Justice Taft demanded—”absolute and arbitrary” discretion to pick its appellate cases. Today, under the resulting certiorari regime, the Court enjoys that unbridled discretion in selecting its cases.

Because Congress delegated its power to the Court without articulating “an intelligible principle,” certiorari jurisdiction violates the nondelegation doctrine and is unconstitutional. This Article is …

Reshaping College Athlete Sports Betting Education, Becky Harris, John T. Holden

BYU Law Review

Legal sports wagering has been rapidly expanding across the United States since 2018. In the wake of the Supreme Court's Murphy decision, more than twenty five states have legalized sports betting and billions of dollars have followed the cascades of legalization. As the legal market continues to grow, professional sports leagues have been quick to embrace the regulated expansion, but the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) has not changed their steadfast opposition. Despite the NCAA's vehement opposition, the organization has seemed to gain little traction in getting states to either wholly exclude wagering on collegiate sports or getting the federal …

Daily Fantasy Sports As Game Of Chance: Distinction Without A Meaningful Difference?, N. Cameron Leishman

BYU Law Review

No abstract provided.

Diminished Capacity Departures For Compulsive Gambling: Punishing The Pathological Or Pardoning The Common Criminal?, Justin W. Starr

BYU Law Review

No abstract provided.

Who Will Control The Future Of Indian Gaming? "A Few Pages Of History Are Worth A Volume Of Logic", Kevin J. Worthen, Wayne R. Farnsworth

BYU Law Review

This Article attempts to place the current controversy concerning reservation gaming into perspective by viewing it not solely as a 1990s battle over casinos in IndianCountry, but as the latest round in a much longer and larger struggle among the federal, state and tribal governments over the States' role in governing Native American groups within state borders. The Article argues that federal-state relations on non-Indian issues often shape federal Indian policy more than a thoughtful consideration of the proper balance between state economic and tribal autonomy issues. What may begin as a dispute about tribal-state relations on a particular matter, …