Case 3:25-cv-06162-JSC Document 71 Filed 11/10/25 Page 9 of 13
No. 35 at 25 n.11, 12.) 2 Plaintiffs urge the prohibitions in the compact and procedures do not
1
mention third parties like Kalshi because under IGRA, “the Tribe is the only entity authorized to
2
conduct class III gaming on its lands. There would be no reason to prohibit third parties from
3
internet gaming on tribal lands.” (Dkt. No. 56 at 3.) Maybe, but that does not mean the compact
4
or secretarial procedures prohibit Defendants’ conduct.
5
Plaintiffs also have not shown a likelihood of succeeding on its IGRA claim for an
6
additional reason: a later enacted, more specific statute — the UIGEA — governs Kalshi’s contracts.
7
The UIGEA, unlike IGRA, expressly addresses internet gaming that can be accessed in locations
8
where such gaming is unlawful, including Indian lands . 31 U.S.C. § 5362(10) (defining “unlawful
9
Internet gambling” to mean placing, receiving, or transmitting a bet or wager via the internet
10
“where such bet or wager is unlawful under any applicable . . . law in the State or Tribal lands”) ;
11
see also Iipay Nation , 898 F.3d at 965 (“In effect, the UIGEA prevents using the internet to
12
circumvent existing state and fede ral gambling laws[.]”) . IGRA does not address this scenario,
13
which is unsurprising given “ Congress passed IGRA in 1988 — a few years before the internet
14
became publicly available. … [T]he statute nowhere referenced the internet, or other networking
15
capabilities that reach beyond Indian lands.” Iipay Nation , 898 F.3d at 964 n.6; see also Michigan
16
v. Bay Mills Indian Cmty ., 572 U.S. 782, 795 (2014) (“Everything— literally everything — in IGRA
17
affords tools (for either state or federal officials) to regulate gaming on Indian lands, and nowhere
18
else.”).
19
“[W]hen two statutes are capable of co -existence, it is the duty of the courts, absent a
20
clearly expressed congressional intention to the contrary, to regard each as effective.” Traynor v.
21
Turnage , 485 U.S. 535, 548 (1988) (internal quotation marks omitted). Accordingly, the UIGEA
22
should be interpreted to apply to cover interstate (or state-to-Indian-lands and vice versa) gaming
23
24
2 Class III Gaming Secretarial Procedures for The Blue Lake Rancheria, California, Bureau of Indian Affairs (Jan. 31, 2024), https://www.bia.gov/sites/default/files/dup/assets/asia/oig/pdf/508_compliant_2024.01.31_blue_la ke_rancheria_secretarial_procedures.pdf; Class III Gaming Secretarial Procedures for The Chicken Ranch Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians of California, Bureau of Indian Affairs (Jan. 31, 2024), https://www.bia.gov/sites/default/files/dup/assets/asia/oig/pdf/508_compliant_2024.01.31_chicken _ranch_rancheria_secretarial_procedures.pdf.
25
26
27
28
9
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs