Case: 25-7504, 01/16/2026, DktEntry: 38.1, Page 27 of 47
§ 19(f). 9 But that exception notably excludes sports wagering. See id. The upshot: sports wagering is illegal anywhere in California, and the Plaintiff Tribes’ lands are therefore not “located in a State that permits [Kalshi’s] gaming” within the meaning of IGRA. 25 U.S.C. § 2710(d)(1)(B). Before the district court, Kalshi attempted to excuse its noncom- pliance with IGRA—and the California law incorporated into IGRA—on the ground that its exchange is located in New York. 3-ER-297. As this Court has previously explained, however, IGRA looks to the place where the bettor has “initiat[ed] a bet or wager,” not the location of any “‘off- site licensing or operation of the games.’” Iipay , 898 F.3d at 967 (quoting Bay Mills , 572 U.S. at 792-793); accord, e.g. , S. Ute Indian Tribe v. Polis , 9 The growth in tribal gaming revenue under this exception has been significant. In Fiscal Year 2024, tribal gaming revenue for the region that includes all California tribal casinos and one Nevada tribal casino exceeded $12 billion, amounting to 27% of nationwide tribal gaming rev- enue. Nat’l Indian Gaming Comm’n, FY 2024 Gross Gaming Revenue Report at 7 (July 31, 2025), https://www.nigc.gov/?wpdmdl=12761&ind= 1754333463993. Under state law and existing compacts, this revenue benefits all tribes in the state. In re Indian Gaming Related Cases , 331 F.3d 1094, 1113 (9th Cir. 2003). The resulting tribal economic develop- ment, self-sufficiency, and strong tribal governments are consistent with IGRA’s express purposes. 25 U.S.C. § 2702(1).
19
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs