Case: 25-7504, 01/16/2026, DktEntry: 38.1, Page 10 of 47
borders. The claimed ability of defendants Kalshi Inc. and KalshiEX LLC (collectively, Kalshi) to offer sports wagering on the Plaintiff Tribes’ lands—irrespective of tribal authority and state law—disregards the sovereign powers of both governments. The states therefore have a sig- nificant interest in the outcome of this case—one that overlaps with, but differs in certain respects from, that of the Plaintiff Tribes. The Amicus States submit this brief to defend this significant state interest, and to explain why Kalshi’s understanding of federal law is wrong. As Kalshi would have it, a company that lists classic sports wa- gers on an exchange registered with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) may completely sidestep IGRA, tribal authority, and state law—not to mention numerous other federal statutes. The basis of Kalshi’s sweeping assertion is an atextual and implausible in- terpretation of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Pro- tection Act (Dodd-Frank), Pub. L. No. 111-203, 124 Stat. 1376 (2010). Even though Dodd-Frank does not mention sports wagering—and even though such wagering was illegal in all but a handful of states at the time of Dodd-Frank’s passage—Kalshi suggests that the statute legal-
2
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs