Case 3:25-cv-06162-JSC Document 71 Filed 11/10/25 Page 8 of 13
Defendants ’ insistence Stand Up applies only in the context of § 2710(d)(1), but not in the
1
context of § 2710(d)(7)(A)(ii), is unpersuasive for two reasons. First, Stand Up reasoned the
2
compacts are equivalent to secretarial procedures for purposes of Sections 2710(d)(1) and
3
2710(d)(6) because there is a “presumption that a given term is used to mean the same thing
4
throughout a statute. ” Id . (citing Brown v. Gardner , 513 U.S. 115, 118 (1994)). So, the Court must
5
presume compacts are equivalent to secretarial procedures in § 2710(d)(7), which immediately
6
follows a subsection Stand Up addressed. See id. ; 25 U.S.C. §§ 2710(d)(6), (d)(7). Second,
7
Defendants’ interpretation of Section 2710(d)(7)(A) “robs IGRA’s remedial scheme, which relies
8
on Secretarial Procedures to ensure good- faith negotiation by states, of its force.” Stand Up , 959
9
F.3d at 1160. Under Defendants’ reading, Tribes would lose the ability to enjoin unlawful Class
10
III activity on their lands whenever a state refuses to negotiate a new compact in good faith – a
11
situation over which Tribes have no control. As Stand Up warned, “such an incomplete remedy
12
would create only feeble and ineffective incentives for states to negotiate in good faith.” Id. at
13
1160. Like the Ninth Circuit, the Court “do [es] not believe that Congress intended such a result
14
that would permit a state to be hostile to Indian tribes.” Id. at 1161.
15
So, the Court has jurisdiction over Plaintiff s’ IGRA cause of action if they are seeking to
16
enjoin activity “conducted on Indian lands” and in violation Plaintiffs’ compact or secretarial
17
procedures within the meaning of subsection (d)(7)(A)(ii). But Plaintiffs have not established it is
18
likely the Court has such jurisdiction.
19
First, Picayune Rancheria has not shown a likelihood of success on its claim that Kalshi’s
20
contracts are in violation of its Tribal-State compact. Plaintiffs contend “Section 4.1(c) of the
21
Tribe’s 1999 Compact specifically prohibits internet gaming activities such as those being
22
conducted by Kalshi.” (Dkt. No. 35 -2 ¶ 13.) Not so. Section 4.1(c) is silent about what
23
companies like Defendants can do on the internet, and only outlines what “[t]he Tribe” is
24
“authorized and permitted to operate.” (Dkt. No. 44-3 at 13.) Specifically, “the Tribe will not
25
offer [certain] games through use of the Internet unless others in the state are permitted to do so.”
26
(Dkt. No. 44-3 at 13.) Second, Blue Lake’s and Chicken Ranch’s secretarial procedures have the
27
same language, and thus do not mention what companies like Kalshi can do on the internet. (Dkt.
28
8
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs