Case: 25-7516, 01/23/2026, DktEntry: 33.1, Page 70 of 110
c. There is no evidence that Congress intended to federalize all sports betting There is no indication that Congress sought to preempt all state gam-
ing law and make the CFTC the Nation’s sole sports-betting regulator.
“Had Congress intended such a sea change in the regulatory landscape, it
surely would have said so,” because Congress does not “ hide elephants in
mouseholes.” Whitman , 531 U.S. at 468; see 1-ER-18; Martin , 793 F. Supp.
3d at 684; Mass. PI Order 12.
Federalizing sports betting would massively upset the federal-state
balance. Gaming is a longstanding area of state regulation, see Flynt , 131
F.4th at 932, and federal law historically has respected state authority in
this field, Greater New Orleans Broad. Ass’n , 527 U.S. at 185. Yet the “nec-
essary implication” of Kalshi’s position is that all sports wagers can be reg-
ulated only by the CFTC. Crypto.com , 2025 WL 2916151, at *9. Congress
does not make major changes to the “usual constitutional balance of federal
and state powers” without clearly saying so. Bond , 572 U.S. at 858-59 (quot-
ing Gregory v. Ashcroft , 501 U.S. 452, 460 (1991)).
Further, federalizing sports betting would have “vast economic and
political” consequences. West Virginia , 597 U.S. at 716 (internal quotation
marks omitted). Sports betting is a $14-billion-a-year industry that is both
“controversial” and “immensely popular.” Murphy , 584 U.S. at 460, 484; see
AGA, States 10. Thus, under the major-questions doctrine, there would
52
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs