Case: 25-7504, 01/16/2026, DktEntry: 38.1, Page 21 of 47
id . § 701, 124 Stat. at 1641. But Kalshi claims that these amendments had another effect: surreptitiously legalizing sports gambling nation- wide. In particular, Kalshi maintains that sports wagers are “swaps” that are exempt from all federal, state, or tribal gaming regulations when traded on a CFTC-registered contract market—as all swaps must be, under Dodd-Frank. D. Ct. Doc. 44, at 8-10, 16-17; see 7 U.S.C. § 2(e). Kalshi has not cited any statutory text, legislative history, stake- holder statements, or even media coverage suggesting that members of Congress or the public in 2010 thought Dodd-Frank would affect sports wagering—let alone that it would strip states and Indian tribes of their regulatory authority by legalizing such wagering nationwide. That si- lence is telling: Congress debated Dodd-Frank for nearly two years in a process closely covered by both traditional media and the financial trade press. 2 In multiple lawsuits now pending across the country, however, the only legislative history referencing sports wagering that any party has identified is a short discussion between two Senators confirming
2 See generally The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act: Background and Summary , Cong. Rsch. Serv. (April 21, 2017) (Dodd-Frank Background), https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/ 67531/metadc1042500/m1/1.
13
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs