Case: 25-7504, 01/16/2026, DktEntry: 38.1, Page 28 of 47
No. 1:24-cv-1886, 2025 WL 3459865, at *4 (D. Colo. Oct. 23, 2025), ap- peal docketed , No. 25-1440 (10th Cir.) (“[O]nline Class III gaming activ- ity occurs where the bettor, not the server, is located when he or she initiates the wager.”). In Iipay , that principle applied to a tribe that sought to reach beyond its borders to offer online bingo to bettors located in states where gambling is illegal. See 898 F.3d at 967. But the princi- ple applies with the same force to companies, like Kalshi, that seek to reach into Indian lands to offer wagers administered elsewhere. Either way, the location of the wager is what matters. Other interpretive principles confirm that IGRA’s application turns on the place of the wager. For one thing, that construction harmo- nizes IGRA with other federal statutes: the Wire Act, for example, pro- vides a safe harbor only if the relevant sports wager is sent “ from a State or foreign country where betting on that sporting event or contest is legal into a State or foreign country in which such betting is legal.” 18 U.S.C. § 1084(b) (emphasis added); see United States v. Cohen , 260 F.3d 68, 73- 75 (2d Cir. 2001) (applying this principle to an offshore sportsbook oper- ator). And even if there were any ambiguity on the issue, settled law would require IGRA’s interpretation in favor of the Plaintiff Tribes. See
20
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs