Case: 25-7516, 01/23/2026, DktEntry: 33.1, Page 72 of 110
scheme to regulate that gaming, see id. § 2710. Kalshi’s view would com-
pletely override the Tribes’ authority and disrupt that scheme, because un-
der Kalshi’s view, Congress gave the CFTC the exclusive authority to deter-
mine how much sports betting to allow nationwide, including on tribal land.
Martin , 793 F. Supp. 3d at 683.
The Wire Act makes it a federal crime to use interstate wire commu-
nication facilities, including the internet, to place bets or wagers on “any
sporting event,” except where such wagers are legal in both the sending and
receiving State. 18 U.S.C. § 1084(a). Companies that offer online betting
geofence their customers to comply with this provision. 1-StateSER-36. Yet
under Kalshi’s view, customers could engage in sports betting wherever
they are, with no regard for state law—thus nullifying the Wire Act. Mar-
tin , 793 F. Supp. 3d at 683.
Kalshi invokes (Br. 63) the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement
Act (UIGEA), 31 U.S.C. § 5361 et seq. , which supplements the Wire Act by
making it a crime to fund illegal online betting. Id. § 5363. As Kalshi notes
(Br. 63), the UIGEA defines “bet” and “wager” to exclude transactions on
DCMs. See id. § 5362(1)(E)(ii). But those definitions do not apply outside
the UIGEA; the UIGEA expressly states it does not “alter[]” or “limit[]”
other laws. Id. § 5361(b). Thus, the Wire Act continues to prohibit internet
betting that is illegal under state law, and IGRA continues to prohibit in-
ternet betting on tribal lands unless permitted by the Tribe.
54
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs