Game Laws Research Articles

In American law, Native nations (denominated in the Constitution and elsewhere as “tribes”) are sovereigns with a direct relationship with the federal government. Tribes’ governmental status situates them differently from other minority groups for many legal purposes, including equal protection analysis. Under current equal protection doctrine, classifications that further the federal government’s unique relationship with tribes and their members are not subject to heightened scrutiny. Yet this deferential approach has been subject to recent criticism and is currently being challenged in pending cases. Swept up in the larger drift toward colorblind or race-neutral understandings of the Constitution, courts and commentators question the distinction between tribes’ political and racial status, and urge courts to strike down child welfare and gaming laws that benefit tribes. Yet tribes (as collectives) must trace their heritage to peoples who preceded European/American settlement in order to establish the political relationship with the federal government. Tribes, in order to be recognized as such under the Constitution, therefore must, as an initial definitional matter, consist of people tied together by something akin to lineage. Descent and ancestry (often conflated with the socio-legal category of “race,”) are the difference between legitimate federal recognition of tribal status and unauthorized and unconstitutional acts by Congress. Congress, in other words, cannot establish a government-to-government relationship with just any group of people. Tribes are treated differently from other groups due to their ties to the indigenous peoples of North America, and federal courts should not use that constitutional distinction against tribes in a misguided effort to eradicate all traces of things currently sounding in “race.”The argument advanced here might be seen as a form of American Indian law exceptionalism. Yet it is consistent with racial formation theory’s project of understanding race as a construction that serves, creates, and perpetuates legalized subordination, and that also shapes daily social conceptions and interactions. Racial formation theory calls for multiple accounts of racialization depending on the social and economic purposes served by each groups’ subordination. On the remedial side, racial formation theory therefore necessarily anticipates what we might think of as multiple exceptionalisms. Reversing policies that aimed to eliminate Native people from the continent, and the racialized understanding of Indians that drove them, requires maintaining the political status of tribes as separate sovereigns, not destroying it in the name of an ahistorical conception of “race” neutrality.

Read full abstract

Gaming Law Review and EconomicsVol. 19, No. 9 ArticlesAre Mini-games Within RuneScape Gambling or Gaming?Mark D. Griffiths and Rosie KingMark D. GriffithsSearch for more papers by this author and Rosie KingSearch for more papers by this authorPublished Online:13 Nov 2015https://doi.org/10.1089/glre.2015.1995AboutSectionsPDF/EPUB ToolsPermissionsDownload CitationsTrack CitationsAdd to favorites Back To Publication ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditEmail FiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsCited byGaming-Gambling Convergence: Trends, Emerging Risks, and Legislative Responses20 April 2021 | International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, Vol. 20, No. 4Virtual Empire: Performing Colonialism in the MMORPG Runescape16 June 2022 | Games and Culture, Vol. 29Understanding the lives of problem gamers: The meaning, purpose, and influences of video gamingComputers in Human Behavior, Vol. 97Revisiting MMORPGs in Support of LearningQuand la question de l’argent dans le jeu vidéo influence la pratique clinique en addictologiePsychotropes, Vol. Vol. 23, No. 3A longitudinal study of the individual- and group-level problematic gaming and associations with problem gambling among Swedish adolescents12 March 2018 | Brain and Behavior, Vol. 8, No. 4The relationship between gaming disorder and addiction requires a behavioral analysisJournal of Behavioral Addictions, Vol. 6, No. 3 Volume 19Issue 9Nov 2015 InformationCopyright 2015, Mary Ann Liebert, Inc.To cite this article:Mark D. Griffiths and Rosie King.Are Mini-games Within RuneScape Gambling or Gaming?.Gaming Law Review and Economics.Nov 2015.640-643.http://doi.org/10.1089/glre.2015.1995Published in Volume: 19 Issue 9: November 13, 2015PDF download

Read full abstract

Game Laws Research Articles

Articles published on Game Laws

Kelly Sonnenberg et al. v. Amaya Group Holding (IOM) Limited et al.Nos. 15-1885, 15-1887; 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 709 (United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, January 15, 2016)

Nevada Gaming Regulators Address Club Venues in Gaming Establishments

State of Oregon v. Paula Diane BellA156129; 276 Ore. App. 21; 2016 Ore. App. LEXIS 51 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, January 21, 2016)

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Barbara Jean DavisCC No. 201312544; 2015 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 319 (Common Pleas Court of Alleghany County, Pennsylvania, Criminal Division, July 10, 2015)

They Were Here First: American Indian Tribes, Race, and the Constitutional Minimum

Pauma Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Pauma and Yuima Reservation v. State of CaliforniaCase Nos. 14-56104; 14-56105; 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 18635 (United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, October 26, 2015)

From Daily Fantasy Sports to Candy Crush for Cash: How Millennials Are Changing Legal Gaming

I-Gaming Regulation and Enforcement in Australia

Mia Mason v. Machine Zone, Inc.Civil No. JKB-15-1107; 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 142790 (United States District Court for the District of Maryland, October 21, 2015)

Segan, LLC v. Zynga, Inc.Case No. 14-cv-01315-VC; 2015 U.S. Dist.. LEXIS 121545 (United States District Court for the Northern District of California, September 10, 2015)

Casino “Backrooming” and the Law: An Analysis of False Imprisonment Cases in American Casinos

United States of America v. Dustin J. Denunzio, et alCase No. 14-10284-NMG; 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 120777 (United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, September 9, 2015)

Citizens Against Casino Gambling in Erie County, et al v. Jonodev Osceola Chaudhuri et alCase No. 11-517, 11-5466, 13-2339, 13-2777; 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 16439 (U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, September 15, 2015)

Fanduel, Inc. v. Eric T. SchneidermanSupreme Court of the State of New York, December 11, 2015

Wildlife Environmental Conservation: A Case Study of Oba Hill Forest Reserve

Casino- Versus State-Directed Amenities Investment: A Comparison of Mississippi and New Jersey Laws and Regulations Concerning Economic Development

Criminalizing the Second Oldest Profession: Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA)

Peerless Ltd v. Gambling Regulatory Authority and Others[2015] UKPC 29 (Privy Council, June 15, 2015)

Are Mini-games Within RuneScape Gambling or Gaming?

Tristian Moore v. Horseshoe CasinoCase No. 1:15 CV 471, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 105311 (U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, August 11, 2015)

Lead the way for us

Editage

Paperpal

R Discovery

Mind the Graph

Game Laws Research Articles

Articles published on Game Laws

Kelly Sonnenberg et al. v. Amaya Group Holding (IOM) Limited et al.Nos. 15-1885, 15-1887; 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 709 (United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, January 15, 2016)

Nevada Gaming Regulators Address Club Venues in Gaming Establishments

State of Oregon v. Paula Diane BellA156129; 276 Ore. App. 21; 2016 Ore. App. LEXIS 51 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, January 21, 2016)

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Barbara Jean DavisCC No. 201312544; 2015 Pa. Dist. &amp; Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 319 (Common Pleas Court of Alleghany County, Pennsylvania, Criminal Division, July 10, 2015)

They Were Here First: American Indian Tribes, Race, and the Constitutional Minimum

Pauma Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Pauma and Yuima Reservation v. State of CaliforniaCase Nos. 14-56104; 14-56105; 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 18635 (United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, October 26, 2015)

From Daily Fantasy Sports to Candy Crush for Cash: How Millennials Are Changing Legal Gaming

I-Gaming Regulation and Enforcement in Australia

Mia Mason v. Machine Zone, Inc.Civil No. JKB-15-1107; 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 142790 (United States District Court for the District of Maryland, October 21, 2015)

Segan, LLC v. Zynga, Inc.Case No. 14-cv-01315-VC; 2015 U.S. Dist.. LEXIS 121545 (United States District Court for the Northern District of California, September 10, 2015)

Casino “Backrooming” and the Law: An Analysis of False Imprisonment Cases in American Casinos

United States of America v. Dustin J. Denunzio, et alCase No. 14-10284-NMG; 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 120777 (United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, September 9, 2015)

Citizens Against Casino Gambling in Erie County, et al v. Jonodev Osceola Chaudhuri et alCase No. 11-517, 11-5466, 13-2339, 13-2777; 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 16439 (U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, September 15, 2015)

Fanduel, Inc. v. Eric T. SchneidermanSupreme Court of the State of New York, December 11, 2015

Wildlife Environmental Conservation: A Case Study of Oba Hill Forest Reserve

Casino- Versus State-Directed Amenities Investment: A Comparison of Mississippi and New Jersey Laws and Regulations Concerning Economic Development

Criminalizing the Second Oldest Profession: Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA)

Peerless Ltd v. Gambling Regulatory Authority and Others[2015] UKPC 29 (Privy Council, June 15, 2015)

Are Mini-games Within RuneScape Gambling or Gaming?

Tristian Moore v. Horseshoe CasinoCase No. 1:15 CV 471, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 105311 (U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, August 11, 2015)

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Barbara Jean DavisCC No. 201312544; 2015 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 319 (Common Pleas Court of Alleghany County, Pennsylvania, Criminal Division, July 10, 2015)