Case 1:25-cv-12578-RGS Document 41-1 Filed 10/16/25 Page 22 of 24
In Cabazon , the Supreme Court recognized the importance of “the congressional goal of Indian self-government, including its overriding goal of encouraging tribal self-sufficiency and economic development[,]” and noted that federal agencies “ha[ve] sought to implement these policies by promoting tribal bingo enterprises.” 480 U.S. at 216–17 (internal quotations omitted). It also acknowledged that tribal casinos often provide “the sole source of revenues for the operation of the tribal governments and the provision of tribal services” and that, in some instances, tribal casinos “are also the major sources of employment on the reservations.” Id. at 218–19. Following Cabazon , Congress declared in IGRA that “[t]he purpose of [IGRA] is … to provide a statutory basis for the operation of gaming by Indian tribes as a means of promoting tribal economic development, self-sufficiency, and strong tribal governments ….” 25 U.S.C. § 2702(1). Robinhood tramples upon established federal Indian policy by usurping the rights of tribes to regulate gaming on Indian land and benefit from such gaming. IGRA mandates that tribes “have the exclusive right to regulate gaming on Indian lands,” and that sports betting is “lawful on Indian lands only if … conducted in conformance with a Tribal-State compact….” 25 U.S.C. §§ 2701(5), 2710(d)(1)(C); see 25 C.F.R. § 502.4(c). Robinhood violates this exclusive right. Robinhood’s intrusion is particularly dangerous because it does not comply with any gaming regulations that protect consumers, ensure fairness, or mitigate negative gaming impacts. 19 In fact, Robinhood’s sports event contracts are wholly unregulated by any gaming 19 This lack of responsible gaming measures and consumer protections, which are required by legal gaming operations, is dangerous and contrary to the public interest. However, in a recent panel at the National Council of Legislators from Gaming States, Josh Sterling (a former CFTC employee and the lawyer representing Kalshi in concurrent litigation) dismissed such responsible gaming concerns, stating: “People are adults, and they’re allowed to spend their money however they want it, and if they lose their shirt, that’s on them.” Jessica Welman, Kalshi’s lawyer goes 22
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs