Case 2:25-cv-01541-APG-DJA Document 32 Filed 09/30/25 Page 5 of 21
or risk something of value upon the outcome of a sporting event based on the understanding that
1
the person will receive something of value based on that outcome. Robinhood does not deny this.
2
Instead, Robinhood ignores the fact that its sports event contracts are sports bets by another name,
3
and maintains that the CFTC has exclusive jurisdiction over its sports event contracts as “swaps”
4
or “excluded commodities” listed for trade on Kalshi’s designated contract market (“DCM”). ECF
5
No. 7 at 13. As discussed further below, this argument fails.
6
But regardless of Robinhood’s preemption arguments, its sports event contracts clearly
7
constitute Class III gaming. Robinhood has not obtained a license to offer these bets pursuant to
8
tribal ordinance or resolution; nor has Robinhood been authorized to conduct its sports betting
9
pursuant to any tribal-state compact. Across the board, Robinhood does not geographically restrict
10
its sports event contracts and, therefore, offers such sports betting on Indian lands without
11
complying with IGRA. Thus, each bet Robinhood facilitates on Indian lands violates IGRA,
12
undermines tribal sovereignty, and reduces tribal gaming revenue and government funding.
13
B.
The CEA does not preempt IGRA
14
15
If taken as true, Robinhood’s argument—that the CTFC has exclusive jurisdiction over its
16
sports betting—necessarily presumes that the CEA preempts IGRA in its entirety. In a similar
17
case before the Maryland District Court, Kalshi attempted to make this argument, stating that even
18
if “IGRA’s definition of ‘gaming’” encompassed sports event contracts, “the CEA’s exclusive
19
jurisdiction provision would displace any attempt by tribes to regulate those contracts.” Pl.’s
20
Reply in Supp. of Prelim. Inj. at 7, KalshiEX LLC v. Martin , No. 1:25-cv-01283-ABA (D. Md.
21
May 19, 2025), ECF No. 29. Ultimately, the court disagreed with Kalshi and denied its motion for
22
preliminary injunction, which is now on appeal before the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.
23
KalshiEX, LLC v. Martin , No. 1:25-cv-01283-ABA, 2025 WL 2194908 (D. Md. Aug. 1, 2025).
24
Congress has been regulating commodity futures for more than a century, historically
25
focusing on agricultural commodities. See Merrill Lynch v. Curran , 456 U.S. 353, 357–63 (1982).
26
does not change the core understanding of what “sports betting” means. Moreover, IGRA contains no similar exclusion for Class III gaming, which expressly includes “sports betting.” 25 C.F.R. § 502.4.
27
28
- 5 -
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs