Case: 25-7504, 01/16/2026, DktEntry: 38.1, Page 24 of 47
arguments. 6 In addition, at least one state, Massachusetts, has brought an en- forcement action in state court to enjoin Kalshi from offering sports wa- gers in violation of state law. See Commonwealth v. KalshiEX, LLC , No. 2584CV02525-BLS1 (Mass. Super.). A motion for a preliminary injunc- tion is now under advisement in that case. As this case demonstrates, Indian tribes also have taken excep- tion to Kalshi’s violation of IGRA and their sovereignty. 7 ARGUMENT Sports wagering on Indian lands is prohibited unless offered in compliance with IGRA’s framework of cooperative federalism. By its plain terms, UIGEA does not affect that framework, and nothing in the CEA impliedly repeals IGRA or shield’s Kalshi’s conduct. The district 6 Br. of Amici Curiae of Nevada, Ohio, 36 Other States, and the Dis- trict of Columbia Supporting Appellees, KalshiEX LLC v. Martin et al. , No. 25-1892 (4th Cir. Dec. 22, 2025) (Doc. 41-1); Br. of Amici Curiae of Nevada, Ohio, and 32 Other States, District of Columbia, and Northern Mariana Islands Supporting Appellants, KalshiEX LLC v. Flaherty et al. , No. 25-1922 (3d Cir. June 17, 2025) (Doc. 29). 7 See, e.g. , Br. of Indian Gaming Ass’n et al., KalshiEX LLC v. Mar- tin et al. , No. 25-1892 (4th Cir.) (Doc. 47); Ho-Chunk Nation v. Kalshi Inc. , No. 25-cv-698 (W.D. Wis.) (involving similar issues).
16
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs