Case: 25-7504, 01/16/2026, DktEntry: 38.1, Page 31 of 47
Put simply, UIGEA “does not change the legality of any gambling-re- lated activity in the United States”—including under IGRA. H.R. Rep. No. 109-412, pt. 1, at 8. The district court’s contrary conclusion rested on a misapplication of this Court’s decision in Iipay . See 1-ER-7-12. There, California and the federal government argued that UIGEA barred a tribe from offering an online bingo game from servers located on the tribe’s lands to players located on non-tribal lands in California, where gambling was illegal. Iipay , 898 F.3d at 962-964. The tribe responded that IGRA authorized its conduct, but this Court disagreed, holding that IGRA was inapplica- ble because the wagers “d[id] not occur on Indian lands and [were] thus not subject to [the tribe’s] jurisdiction under IGRA.” Id. at 967. Iipay thus stands for the unremarkable proposition that, where IGRA does not apply, it cannot “shield [gaming activity] from the application of the UI- GEA.” Id. ; see id. at 965-969. Here, by contrast, Kalshi argues something markedly different: that sports wagers prohibited by IGRA are excused from that prohibition if they also do not violate UIGEA. But nothing in Iipay supports that conclusion—to the contrary, the Iipay Court recognized that “UIGEA
23
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs