Case 3:25-cv-06162-JSC Document 71 Filed 11/10/25 Page 5 of 13
young, soon-to-be gamblers, but Plaintiffs have not offered evidence or even complaint allegations
1
in support of this theory ; Plaintiffs’ only evidence of harm and direct competition is (1) declarants
2
were able to use the Kalshi app while within the jurisdiction of the Tribes, and (2) the claim
3
“[c]asino staff have observed casino patriots betting on the Kalshi app while in the casino.” ( See,
4
e.g. , Dkt. No. 35-2 ¶ 16; Dkt. No. 35-6 ¶ 40.)
5
Accordingly, Plaintiffs have not shown a likelihood of succeeding on the Lanham Act
6
claim, so the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ motion as to that claim.
7
II.
IGRA Claim
8
A. IGRA’s Statutory Back ground
9
Congress enacted the Johnson Act in 1951 to prohibit the “possess[ion] or use of any
10
gambling device … within Indian country.” 15 U.S.C. § 1175. In the years that followed, states
11
began regulating gaming activity on tribal lands. See Chicken Ranch Rancheria of Me-Wuk
12
Indians v. California , 42 F.4th 1024, 1031 – 32 (9th Cir. 2022) (discussing California’s attempt to
13
regulate bingo halls on tribal lands, which culminated in the Supreme Court’s decision in
14
California v. Cabazon Band of Mission Indians , 480 U.S. 202 (1987)). In response, Congress
15
enacted IGRA in 1988 to provide a uniform framework for regulating gaming activity on Indian
16
lands and “to strike a delicate balance between the sovereignty of states and federally recognized
17
Native American tribes.” Pauma Band of Luiseno Mission Indians v. California , 813 F.3d 1155,
18
1160 (9th Cir. 2015). “The Act was passed in order to provide a statutory basis for the operation of
19
gaming by Indian tribes as a means of promoting tribal economic development, self-sufficiency,
20
and strong tribal governments and to shield [tribal gaming] from organized crime and other
21
corrupting influences to ensure that the Indian tribe is the primary beneficiary of the gaming
22
operation.” Id. (cleaned up). “ IGRA is an example of ‘ cooperative federalism ’ in that it seeks to
23
balance the competing sovereign interests of the federal government, state governments, and
24
Indian tribes, by giving each a role in the regulatory scheme. ” In re Indian Gaming Related Cases ,
25
331 F.3d 1094, 1096 (9th Cir. 2003) (quoting Artichoke Joe ’s v. Norton , 216 F. Supp. 2d 1084,
26
1092 (2002)).
27
As relevant here, IGRA regulates “Class III gaming activities,” i.e. , “the types of high -
28
5
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs