Case: 25-7504, 01/16/2026, DktEntry: 38.1, Page 11 of 47
ized sports wagering nationwide, including on Indian lands, by trans- forming sports wagers into “swaps” that must now be traded exclusively on CFTC-regulated exchanges. But Dodd-Frank did not impliedly repeal (or impliedly preempt) the myriad laws that otherwise apply to sports wagering. Those laws continue to safeguard the Amicus States’ long- standing authority to protect their citizens from illicit gambling and the harms associated with legalized gambling, and the Court should not al- low Kalshi’s novel theory to sweep them aside. BACKGROUND I. State and Federal Regulation of Sports Wagering The Amicus States administer laws—and have lived through his- tory—that Kalshi now seeks to wish away. For more than a century, states have legislated around sports wagering. During most of that time, and in most jurisdictions, state law prohibited sports wagering entirely; more recently, dozens of states have allowed such wagering but regu- lated it closely. See John T. Holden & Marc Edelman, A Short Treatise on Sports Gambling and the Law: How America Regulates Its Most Lu- crative Vice , 2020 Wis. L. Rev. 907, 912-937 (2020). Over the years, fed- eral law has built on this foundation of state law, complementing it with
3
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs