Case: 25-7504, 01/16/2026, DktEntry: 38.1, Page 25 of 47
court’s reliance on these inapplicable statutes to excuse Kalshi’s viola- tion of IGRA was legal error, and its decision should be reversed. 8 I. IGRA bars Kalshi from offering sports wagers on Indian lands. A straightforward application of IGRA prohibits anyone—includ- ing Kalshi—from offering sports wagering on the Plaintiff Tribes’ lands. IGRA classifies sports wagering as “Class III” gaming. 25 U.S.C. § 2703(8); 25 C.F.R. § 502.4(c) (defining Class III gaming to include “[a]ny sports betting”). And Class III gaming is lawful on Indian lands only if it is (1) authorized by the tribe with jurisdiction over the lands, (2) “located in a State that permits such gaming,” and (3) conducted con- sistent with a tribal-state compact (or, in the absence of a compact, con- sistent with secretarial procedures). 25 U.S.C. § 2710(d)(1)(A)-(C), 8 This brief does not address the plaintiff-specific questions of (1) whether IGRA’s mandates are incorporated by reference into the com- pact between California and plaintiff Picayune Rancheria or (2) whether violations of secretarial procedures governing gaming on the lands of plaintiffs Blue Lake and Chicken Ranch are actionable under 25 U.S.C. § 2710(d)(7)(A). If this Court holds that the district court lacked juris- diction under § 2710(d)(7)(A), it should resolve the case on that basis alone; it should not address Kalshi’s novel and sweeping legal theory and should vacate the district court’s decision in relevant part. This brief also takes no position on the Plaintiff Tribes’ Lanham Act claim.
17
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs