[CFTC] is not a gaming regulator … and the [CFTC] does not believe that it has the statutory mandate nor specialized experience appropriate to oversee [gambling], or that Congress intended for the [CFTC] to exercise its jurisdiction or expend its resources in this manner.”). The CFTC’s own actions confirm that it has not asserted authority to regulate sports betting. In a recent advisory letter, the CFTC clarified it has not “taken any official action to approve the listing for trading of sports-related event contracts on any DCM.” CTFC Staff Letter No. 25-36 at 2 n.4 (Sep. 30, 2025). In this advisory letter, the CFTC noted that “at least one federal district court has found that the [CEA] does not preempt the application of State gambling, wagering, and gaming laws to sports-related event contracts listed and traded on a CFTC- registered trading venue,” and it advised DCMs to ensure customers “understand the possible effects should State regulatory actions … result in termination of sports-related event contract[s].” Id. at 2 & n.3. Kalshi’s arguments thus stand in sharp contrast to the CFTC’s own unwillingness to regulate sports betting. The Court should reject Kalshi’s efforts to expand the CFTC’s jurisdiction to a vast new area of regulation. 3. The Indian Canons of Construction require this Court to resolve any ambiguity in favor of tribes. Even if there were ambiguity as to whether Congress intended to repeal IGRA when it amended the CEA in 2010 (there is not), the Indian Canons of Construction require courts to resolve statutory ambiguities in favor of tribes. Bryan v. Itasca Cnty. , 426 U.S. 373, 392 (1976); Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa & Chippewa Indians v. U.S. Atty. W. Div. of Mich. , 369 F.3d 960, 971 (6th Cir. 2004) (“[S]tatutes are to be construed liberally in favor of the Indians, with ambiguous provisions interpreted to their benefit.” (quoting Montana v. Blackfeet Tribe of Indians , 471 U.S. 759, 766 (1985))). Federal courts have consistently applied these canons over a half- century to ensure that later-enacted statutes of general applicability cannot repeal earlier-enacted
12
NSH 3426338.2
Case 3:26-cv-00034 Document 40-1 Filed 01/23/26 Page 12 of 22 PageID #: 449
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs