Case 3:25-cv-06162-JSC Document 71 Filed 11/10/25 Page 10 of 13
transactions via the internet, whereas IGRA should be interpreted to cover Class III gaming
1
activities that take place exclusively within Tribal lands. The UIGEA contemplates this
2
delineation. See 31 U.S.C. §§ 5362(10)(C)(i)(I) (exempting “intratribal transactions … made
3
exclusively” within tribal lands, among other criteria); 5362(10)(B)(i)(I) (exempting “intrastate
4
transactions” that meet similar criteria and do not violate IGRA). So, the UIGEA, not IGRA,
5
governs the challenged internet gambling.
6
While the UIGEA governs the conduct, t he phrase “bet or wager” expressly “does not
7
include any transaction conducted on or subject to the rules of a registered entity or exempt board
8
of trade under the Commodity Exchange Act ” or “any other transaction that is excluded or exempt
9
from regulation under the Commodity Exchange Act .” Id. §§ 5362(1)(E)(i), (iv)(I). Plaintiffs do
10
not dispute Kalshi is a “registered entity” under the C ommodity Exchange Act or that Kalshi’s
11
contracts are “transactions conducted on” K alshi. (Dkt. No. 56 at 5-6.) Since it is undisputed
12
Kalshi is a registered entity under the Commodity Exchange Act, and that its transactions are
13
conducted on the Kalshi internet site, its internet contracts are not bets or wagers under the
14
UIGEA and therefore do not constitute “unlawful internet gambling” even if the contracts are
15
received, placed or transmitted from persons on Indian lands where internet gambling is illegal.
16
Plaintiffs ’ citation to UIGEA and Commodity Exchange Act language and history to argue
17
these statutes do not “control or displace IGRA” (Dkt. No. 56 at 5) is unavailing. They first cite
18
UIGEA Section 5361, which says “ no provision of this subchapter shall be construed as altering,
19
limiting, or extending any Federal or State law or Tribal-State compact prohibiting, permitting, or
20
regulating gambling within the United States. ” 31 U.S.C. § 5361(b). This argument fails because,
21
as explained above, Plaintiffs have not identified any Tribal-State compact provision regulating
22
gambling which the UIGEA, as applied here, alters, limits, or extends.
23
Plaintiffs then cite UIGEA Section 5362(10)(C), claiming it is a “‘carve - out’ exempting
24
IGRA transactions.” (Dkt. No. 56 at 5.) Section 5362(10)(C) exempts “intratribal transactions”
25
from the definition of “bet or wager.” 31 U.S.C. § 5362(10)(C). An “intratribal transaction” must
26
satisfy four requirements, one of which is a bet or wager “initiated and received or otherwise made
27
exclusively … within the Indian lands of a single Indian tribe.” 31 U.S.C. § 536 2(10)(C)(i)(I). But
28
10
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs