Sports Gambling in School: A Legal Analysis of Proposals to Strengthen Federal Prohibitions (CRS Report for Congress)
Premium Purchase PDF for $24.95 (16 pages)
add to cart or
subscribe for unlimited access
Pro Premium subscribers have free access to our full library of CRS reports.
Subscribe today, or
request a demo to learn more.
| Release Date |
July 31, 2002 |
| Report Number |
RL30954 |
| Report Type |
Report |
| Authors |
Charles Doyle, American Law Division |
| Source Agency |
Congressional Research Service |
Summary:
Several proposals have been introduced in the 107th Congress to combat incidents of youthful
gambling on sporting events. S. 718 (McCain et al.) and H.R. 1110
(Graham et al.) seek to accomplish this by implementing a National Gambling Impact Study
Commission recommendation that gambling on college and high school sporting events be
completely banned.
Existing Federal law outlaws gambling on all professional and amateur sporting events, but
exempts sports gambling in those states where it had been legalized prior to the federal prohibition.
S. 718 and H.R. 1110 effectively repeal the exemption with respect to
amateur sports gambling. Nevada is now the only state where such gambling is lawful.
In addition to implementing the Commission's recommendation, proponents claim the bills
protect the integrity of amateur sports and help reduce gambling among the young, particularly on
college campuses. Critics contend that it will needlessly impose an economic hardship on the State
of Nevada and is incompatible with the principles of federalism.
S. 338 (Ensign et al.)/ H.R. 641 (Gibbons et al)) takes a different tack.
It seeks to reduce illegal sports gambling among the young through a series of research,
prosecutorial and administrative initiatives to eliminate gambling on college campuses and reduce
illegal sports gambling. It creates a sports gambling task force, increases the maximum federal
criminal penalties for sports gambling, calls for studies on sports gambling by juveniles and
enforcement of existing gambling laws, and urges educational and governmental entities to develop
and execute youth gambling education and prevention programs.
The principal criticism of this Ensign/Gibbons proposal to date is that while its components
might constitute a welcome supplement it is no substitute for the McCain-Graham proposal.
