2026 Membership Book FINAL

Case 3:25-cv-06162-JSC Document 35 Filed 09/04/25 Page 11 of 34

1

Kalshi is wrong. Kalshi’s contracts are not CEA compliant because Kalshi did not meet its

2

obligations under the CEA and CFTC regulations with respect to the self-certification process.

3

Specifically, Kalshi’s contracts facially involve sports gaming, prohibited by the CEA and CFTC

4

regulations, and Kalshi’s self-certifications do not address compliance issues, let alone rebut the

regulatory presumption that its contracts are contrary to the public interest. See 17 C.F.R. §§ 40.11,

5

6

40.2, 40.3. Kalshi, as a Designated Contract Market (“DCM”) and the regulator of that

7

marketplace, is offering prohibited gaming contracts in all fifty states, including on Indian lands

8

within the boundaries of each state.

9

Class III gaming on Indian lands must be conducted in accordance with the IGRA and is

10

regulated exclusively by Indian tribes and states and subject to federal regulatory oversight. 25

11

U.S.C. §§ 2701–2721. IGRA comprehensively regulates the field of Indian gaming and assigns

specific regulatory roles for tribes, states, and federal agencies. See , e.g. , 25 U.S.C. § 2702. IGRA

12

13

preempts the field of regulation of Indian gaming and conveys to the Tribes a right to enjoin

14

unlawful class III gaming on their Indian lands. 25 U.S.C. § 2710(d)(7)(A)(ii). Because Kalshi is

15

intentionally targeting the sports betting consumer and engaging in sports betting in a manner that

16

allows persons and entities to engage in class III sports betting on Indian lands, Kalshi’s activities

17

violate IGRA, the Tribal-State Compact entered into by the Picayune Rancheria of Chukchansi

18

Indians (“Picayune”), the Secretarial Procedures issued to the Blue Lake Rancheria (“Blue Lake”)

19

and the Chicken Ranch Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians (“Chicken Ranch”), and the Tribal Gaming

20

Ordinances enacted by the Plaintiff Tribes in accordance with IGRA to regulate class III gaming

21

activity on their Indian lands.

22

The Tribes, therefore, request that the court issue an order enjoining Kalshi from offering

23

any future gaming contracts within the Plaintiff Tribes’ Indian lands. The Tribes also request that

24

the court issue an order enjoining Kalshi from deploying false and misleading advertisements

25

26

27

28

2 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES [ Case No.: 25-cv-06162-JSC]

Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs