USCA4 Appeal: 25-1892
Doc: 16
Filed: 10/15/2025
Pg: 70 of 97
same CFTC-regulated transactions it excludes to criminal penalties under
different federal statutes.
Even if IGRA and the Wire Act were interpreted to treat on-DCM
trading as a form of bet or wager, the district court was mistaken that the
CFTC’s exclusive jurisdiction over Kalshi’s event contracts results in any
“ implied repeal. ” JA 170. The Wire Act contains a “safe harbor” for “‘ wagering ’” “to and from states” where that activity “is lawful.” W. Flagler Assocs., Ltd. v. Haaland , 71 F.4th 1059, 1069 (D.C. Cir. 2023) (quotation
omitted). Given federal preemption, trading on DCMs is lawful in every
state. And IGRA gives Native American tribes the authority to regulate
gaming “on Indian lands,” 25 U.S.C § 2701 , but does not authorize tribes to
regulate gaming available over the internet. That is the province of the
UIGEA, which, as noted, permits trading on DCMs.
If there were any doubt, multiple canons of construction weigh against
the district court’s interpretation. The CEA, as the more specific statute
addressing on-DCM trading, governs over general ones — especially where, as
here, the Wire Act and IGRA involve a “general prohibition” whereas the CEA provides a “specific permission.” Antonin Scalia & Brian Garner, Reading Law 183 (2012). Likewise, both the UIGEA and the Dodd-Frank
amendments, as later-enacted statutes, take precedence over earlier ones
55
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs