Case: 25-7504, 01/16/2026, DktEntry: 38.1, Page 26 of 47
(d)(7)(B)(vii). These requirements reflect IGRA’s “delicate balance be- tween the sovereignty of states and federally recognized Native Ameri- can tribes.” Chicken Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians v. California , 42 F.4th 1024, 1031 (9th Cir. 2022). At minimum, Kalshi clearly violates the second criterion, because California law expressly prohibits sports wagering. Under the state con- stitution, California’s legislature “has no power to authorize, and shall prohibit, casinos of the type currently operating in Nevada and New Jer- sey.” Cal. Const. art. IV, § 19(e). California’s criminal code, for its part, prohibits “[p]ool selling” and “bookmaking” and specifically bars “every person” from “lay[ing], mak[ing], offer[ing] or accept[ing] any bet or bets, or wager or wagers, upon the result, or purported result, of any trial, or purported trial, or contest, or purported contest, of skill, speed or power of endurance of person or animal, or between persons, animals, or me- chanical apparatus.” Cal. Penal. Code. § 337a(a)(1), (6). A 2000 initia- tive created a narrow exception to these prohibitions, allowing federally recognized Indian tribes to operate slot machines, lotteries, and certain card games pursuant to compacts with the state. Cal. Const. art. IV,
18
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs