USCA4 Appeal: 25-1892
Doc: 44
Filed: 12/22/2025
Pg: 10 of 39
time when Congress prohibited sports betting throughout most of the United States. See 7 U.S.C. § 1a(47)(A)(ii). The consequences of Kalshi’s arguments are difficult to overstate. Its reading of the CEA would amount to a sub silentio reversal of congressional policy and Supreme Court precedent and allow Kalshi—not states or tribes—to regulate its sports-betting business on Indian lands, siphon gaming revenues from tribal governments, and diminish tribal self-sufficiency. The District Court below recognized that Congress did not intend to supplant all state gaming laws through its amendments to the CEA. See JA167–168. It also acknowledged that Kalshi’s argument would “necessarily entail a partial implied repeal of the IGRA.” JA170. The District Court was correct on both counts. Accordingly, this Court should uphold the lower court’s decision. IDENTITY AND INTERESTS OF AMICI The Indian Gaming Association (“IGA”), National Congress of American Indians (“NCAI”), California Nations Indian Gaming Association (“CNIGA”), Arizona Indian Gaming Association (“AIGA”), Minnesota Indian Gaming Association (“MIGA”), Oklahoma Indian Gaming Association (“OIGA”), Washington Indian Gaming Association (“WIGA”), United South and Eastern Tribes Sovereignty Protection Fund (“USET SPF”), San Manuel Gaming and Housing Authority (“SMGHA”), Tribal Alliance of Sovereign Indian Nations
2
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs