Case 3:25-cv-06162-JSC Document 35 Filed 09/04/25 Page 24 of 34
easily subject to valuation.” Prairie Band of Potawatomi Indians v. Pierce , 253 F.3d 1234, 1250
1
(10th Cir. 2001); see also EEOC v. Karuk Tribe Hous. Auth. , 260 F.3d 1071, 1077 (9th Cir. 2001)
2
3
(“Assuming that the Tribe is correct in its analysis with respect to jurisdiction, the prejudice of
4
subjecting the Tribe to a subpoena for which the agency does not have jurisdiction results in
irreparable injury vis-a-vis the Tribe’s sovereignty.”); Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma v. State of
5
Oklahoma , 724 F. Supp. 2d 1182, 1187 (W.D. Okla. 2010) (holding remedies at law are inadequate
6
7
to remedy unlawful assertions of state jurisdiction in Indian Country).
8
While the court decisions addressing the irreparable injury arising from encroachment on
9
tribal sovereignty have usually involved attempts by states to extend their jurisdictional reach to
10
activities on Indian lands, the reasoning of those decisions applies equally well to Kalshi
11
conducting class III gaming on Indian lands in violation of IGRA and the Tribes’ laws.
Tribes have the exclusive authority 8 to conduct, or to authorize a third-party entity to
12
conduct, 9 gaming pursuant to a compact or procedures on their Indian lands, in accordance with
13
14
IGRA and its implementing regulations. Kalshi’s conducting of class III gaming on Indian lands
15
without authorization from a tribe pursuant to a compact, secretarial procedures, or a management
16
contract impermissibly encroaches upon and interferes with the right and ability of the Tribes to
17
regulate that gaming and, thereby, to govern themselves. Ramos Decl. ¶¶ 38-40; Declaration of
18
Joseph Mathiesen-Powell in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Preliminary Injunction
19
(“Mathiesen-Powell Decl.”) ¶ 27; Declaration of Ian DeVries in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for
20
a Preliminary Injunction (“DeVries Decl.”) ¶¶ 3-7; Declaration of Steve Carrillo in Support of
21
Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Preliminary Injunction (“Carrillo Decl.”) ¶¶ 12-17.
22
23
15 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES [ Case No.: 25-cv-06162-JSC] 9 See 25 U.S.C. §§ 2710(d)(9) and 2711; 25 C.F.R. § 502.15 (establishing a regulatory mechanism by which tribes can enter into a contract that “provides for the management of all or part of a gaming operation.”); 25 C.F.R. § 533.7 (establishing by regulation that unapproved management contracts are void ab initio); Catskill Dev., L.L.C. v. Park Place Entm’t Corp. , 547 F.3d 115, 120 (2d Cir. 2008). 8 Cal. Const. Art. IV. § 19 (f)(giving California Indian Tribes the exclusive right to utilize slot machines and play house banked and percentage card games), see also, In re Indian Gaming Related Cases , 331 7. 3d 1094 (9 th Circ. 2003)
24
25
26
27
28
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs