Case: 25-7504, 01/16/2026, DktEntry: 38.1, Page 38 of 47
too. As discussed above, Congress knows well how to regulate gam- bling—including sports wagering. See supra , at 4-10. When it does so, it typically speaks in express terms. The Wire Act, for example, uses phrases like “bets or wagers on a sporting event or contest.” See 18 U.S.C. § 1084. But that kind of language is notably absent from the CEA and Dodd-Frank. That absence is telling: Congress does not hide the ball when it seeks to regulate gambling. B. The necessary implications of Kalshi’s interpretation further undermine its interpretation. In addition to the textual problems with its interpretation, Kalshi’s insistence that sports wagers are “swaps” also leads to two untenable conclusions. First, it requires the Court to believe that Congress silently legal- ized sports gambling when it passed Dodd-Frank in 2010. As discussed above, there is absolutely no indication that members of Congress or the public in 2010 thought that amending the definition of “swap” would open the door to sports betting nationwide. See supra , at 13-14. Instead, the contemporaneous record shows that Congress added swaps to the CEA to ensure that such transactions were transparent and subject to
30
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs