Case: 25-7504, 01/16/2026, DktEntry: 38.1, Page 22 of 47
that the Act would have nothing to do with the topic. See 156 Cong. Rec. S5907 (2010) (Sens. Lincoln and Feinstein). Indeed, the claim that Dodd-Frank addressed sports wagering is novel even for Kalshi itself. In 2024, Kalshi litigated whether it may offer contracts conditioning payout on the outcome of certain federal elections on its CFTC-registered exchange. In asserting the legality of its election contracts, Kalshi conceded that contracts contingent on the result of a sporting event were not within Dodd-Frank’s ambit. See Br. of Appellee KalshiEX LLC, 2024 WL 4802698, at *17, *41, *44-45, KalshiEX LLC v. CFTC , No. 24-5205 (D.C. Cir. Nov. 15, 2024) (“[A]s the legislative history directly confirms, Congress did not want sports bet- ting to be conducted on derivatives markets.”). Early last year, however, Kalshi began to sing a different tune. Though it was not licensed by any of the 39 states that allow sports wa- gering, Kalshi now offers such wagers on the lands of each of the Plaintiff Tribes and in all of the Amicus States. III. Nationwide Litigation Landscape Kalshi’s choices have drawn the attention of state authorities. At least nine states have sent Kalshi cease-and-desist letters ordering it to
14
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs