Case 3:25-cv-06162-JSC Document 35 Filed 09/04/25 Page 19 of 34
1
requested by the Tribes is the appropriate, statutorily imposed relief, and the Court should grant
2
the Tribes’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction.
3
Even if the Court accepts the proposition that Kalshi’s contracts comport with the CEA
4
and CFTC regulations, which they do not, IGRA must control gaming activity on Indian lands if
5
the CEA and CFTC regulations permit some commodities contracts that involve gaming. Kalshi
6
would then be compelled to advocate for an interpretation of the CEA that permits gaming
7
contracts on Indian lands, creating a conflict between the CEA and IGRA. IGRA is clear, when
8
tribal gaming activity is conducted in accordance with IGRA, “Indian tribes have the exclusive
9
right to regulate gaming activity on Indian lands . . . .” 25 U.S.C. § 2701(5). Thus, “Kalshi’s
10
proposed statutory interpretation would necessarily entail at least a partial implied repeal of the
IGRA . . . .” KalshiEX LLC v. Martin , 1:25-cv-01283-ABA, Doc. 70 at *23 (D. Md. Aug. 1, 2025)
11
12
(denying Kalshi’s motion for injunctive relief for failure to establish likelihood of success on
13
merits).
“The cardinal rule is that repeals by implication are not favored.” Posadas v. Nat’l City
14
Bank of New York , 296 U.S. 497, 503 (1936). “When there are two [federal] acts upon the same
15
subject, the rule is to give effect to both if possible.” Morton v. Mancari , 417 U.S. 535, 551 (1974)
16
(quoting United States v. Borden Co. , 308 U.S. 188, 198 (1939)). “Where there is no clear intention
17
18
otherwise, a specific statute will not be controlled or nullified by a general one, regardless of the
priority of enactment.” Id . at 550–551. “It is a basic principle of statutory construction that a statute
19
20
dealing with a narrow, precise, and specific subject is not submerged by a later enacted statute
covering a more generalized spectrum.” Radzanower v. Touche Ross & Co. , 426 U.S. 148, 153
21
22
(1976).
23
IGRA comprehensively regulates one subject: gaming on Indian lands, without exception.
See 31 U.S.C. § 5362(1)(E) (creating an exemption for commodities contracts under UIGEA).
24
25
Interpreting the CEA to permit gaming contracts that constitute sports betting—or activity that
26
otherwise falls within the scope of gaming activity under IGRA—on Indian lands would be
27
tantamount to an implied repeal of IGRA. Even if it is theoretically possible for a commodities
28
10 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES [ Case No.: 25-cv-06162-JSC]
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs