Case: 25-7516, 01/23/2026, DktEntry: 33.1, Page 71 of 110
need to be “clear congressional authorization” for the CFTC to take exclu-
sive regulation of sports betting. West Virginia , 597 U.S. at 732 (internal
quotation marks omitted). Kalshi points to no such authorization.
Kalshi’s only response (Br. 60-61) is that ruling for State Defendants
would allow States to regulate commodity-futures markets. But Nevada is
not seeking to regulate interest-rate swaps or pork futures. State Defend-
ants forthrightly acknowledged that state attempts to regulate bona fide
commodity derivatives would be preempted. 1-StateSER-26; see Martin ,
793 F. Supp. 3d at 681. This case involves only Kalshi’s sports and election
contracts—classic forms of gambling that have long been regulated by the
States.
d. Kalshi’s view would require impliedly repeal- ing other important federal laws Kalshi’s view of the CEA would require finding that Congress im-
pliedly repealed other federal laws, including the Indian Gaming Regula-
tory Act (IGRA), 25 U.S.C. § 2701 et seq. , and the Wire Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1084.
Martin , 793 F. Supp. 3d at 683. There is a strong presumption against such
repeals by implication. Epic Sys. Corp. v. Lewis , 584 U.S. 497, 510 (2018).
The IGRA gives Tribes the “exclusive right” to determine whether and
to what extent to allow gaming that is permitted under federal and state
law on tribal land, 25 U.S.C. § 2701(5), and it contains a comprehensive
53
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs