Case 3:25-cv-02121-VDO Document 58-1 Filed 01/16/26 Page 27 of 29
construing the CEA to attribute legal effect on state law via Kalshi’s self-certification would be unconstitutional—a construction that must be avoided. See United States v. Martinez , 525 F.3d 211, 215–16 (2d Cir. 2008) (“Under the doctrine [of constitutional avoidance], when a court is confronted with two plausible constructions of a statute, one of which ‘would raise a multitude of constitutional problems,’ that court must adopt the construction that avoids the constitutional issue.” (quoting Clark v. Martinez , 543 U.S. 371, 380 (2005))). Moreover, Kalshi has a financial interest in self-certifying Coinbase’s sports-betting contracts, regardless of such certifications’ verity. And that financial interests in offering lucrative and unregulated nationwide sports betting are directly adverse to the sovereign and economic interests of the Mashantucket Pequot Tribe, Mohegan Tribe of Indians, State of Connecticut, and all other tribes, states, and businesses offering sports betting across the country. The effects of Kalshi’s self-certification go even further; in Coinbase’s view, it can block tribes and states from regulating that which has long been within their sovereign authority to regulate simply by listing sports-betting contracts on Kalshi’s exchange. As the Supreme Court has stated, “[t]his is legislative delegation in its most obnoxious form; for it is not even delegation to an official or an official body, presumptively disinterested, but to private persons whose interests may be and often are adverse to the interests of others in the same business.” Carter Coal , 298 U.S. at 311. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the Tribal Amici respectfully request that the Court deny Coinbase’s motion for preliminary injunction.
27
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs