Case 3:25-cv-06162-JSC Document 35 Filed 09/04/25 Page 15 of 34
1
necessarily includes the Indian lands located in each state, Kalshi is offering class III gaming
2
contracts, in conflict with the CEA, that interfere with the regulation of class III Indian gaming in
3
accordance with IGRA.
4
It is well-settled that IGRA comprehensively regulates the field of Indian gaming and
5
establishes that the Tribes and states, under federal oversight, have the exclusive right to regulate
gaming on Indian lands. See , e.g. , 25 U.S.C. § 2702; In re Indian Gaming Related Cases , 331 F.3d
6
7
1094, 1096 (9th Cir. 2003) (“IGRA is an example of ‘cooperative federalism’ in that it seeks to
8
balance the competing sovereign interests of the federal government, state governments, and
Indian tribes, by giving each a role in the regulatory scheme.” (quoting Artichoke Joe’s v. Norton ,
9
216 F. Supp. 2d 1084, 1092 (E.D. Cal. 2002), aff’d sub nom. Artichoke Joe’s California Grand
10
Casino v. Norton , 353 F.3d 712 (9th Cir. 2003)); Michigan v. Bay Mills Indian Cmty. , 572 U.S.
11
12
782, 795 (2014) (“Everything—literally everything—in IGRA affords tools (for either state or
federal officials) to regulate gaming on Indian lands, and nowhere else.”); Gaming Corp. of Am.
13
V. Dorsey & Whitney , 88 F.3d 536, 546–47 (8th Cir. 1996). IGRA was enacted in accordance with
14
15
the unique trust relationship between the federal government and Indian tribes, and Congress
16
enacted IGRA to alleviate burdens on federal resources and promote tribal sovereignty, tribal self-
17
government, and tribal self-determination through tribal economic self-sufficiency, namely,
through tribal gaming. See generally 1 Cohen’s Handbook of Federal Indian Law § 6.04[3] (2025)
18
19
(discussing the history and context of the trust relationship between tribes and the federal
20
government); 25 U.S.C. §§ 2701–2702. In contrast to other federal gambling laws, IGRA does not
carve out an exception for contracts offered in accordance with the CEA. Contrast IGRA, 25
21
U.S.C. §§ 2701–2721 (establishing that IGRA occupies the field of class III Indian gaming), with
22
23
the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (“UIGEA”), 31 U.S.C. §§ 5361–5367,
24
specifically 31 U.S.C. §§ 5362(1)(E)(ii)–(iv) (establishing exemptions for transactions under the
25
CEA and excluding such transactions from the definition of “bet” or “wager”).
26
Regulations promulgated in accordance with IGRA establish that sports betting constitutes
27
class III gaming activity. 25 C.F.R. § 502.4 (“Class III gaming means all forms of gaming that are
28
6 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES [ Case No.: 25-cv-06162-JSC]
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs