Abstract
The 1961 Wire Act is one of the most, if not the most, enigmatic gaming laws. It wasn't always this way, as the Wire Act's origins and intended purpose was noncontroversial for the first 35 or so years of its existence. Problems arose in the 1990s, when internet gambling came on the scene. With no laws to speak of, existing, pre-internet laws, like the Wire Act, were conscripted into action. Since the early aughts, online gambling has been at the mercy of the vagaries of the Wire Act, and the fluid interpretation of how the law applies to internet gambling.
That reign of uncertainty may be over, thanks to a recent decision in the First Circuit Court of Appeals.
In this issue of Gaming Law Review, we have two articles exploring the Wire Act and the impact of the recent First Circuit decision.
The first is a commentary on the recent First Circuit decision by Andrew Silver, an associate at Ifrah Law. In his commentary, titled First Circuit Opinion Affirms Wire Act's Sports Betting Limitation, Silver explores the ramifications of the court's decision.
The second is an academic paper from Gaming Law Review Editorial Board member and distinguished fellow of gaming law at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas Boyd School of Law Anthony Cabot and coauthor Greg Cloward. The article, titled Federal Wire Act Should Adjust to State-Regulated Sports Wagering, Not the Other Way Around: A Proposal for Change, examines the challenges of the Wire Act and the need to permanently fix the antiquated law.
Accompanying the two articles is the First Circuit decision.
This issue also contains another First Circuit ruling, Aquinnah/Gay Head Community Association Inc. v. Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head (Aquinnah), concerning the tribe's operation of a gaming facility on Martha's Vineyard in Massachusetts.