USCA4 Appeal: 25-1892
Doc: 44
Filed: 12/22/2025
Pg: 18 of 39
gaming) to the CFTC. Kalshi’s reading of the CEA not only eradicates state laws but cuts against binding precedent that Congress does not impliedly repeal federal statutes, including IGRA. This Court disfavors repeals by implication. United States v. Frank , 8 F.4th 320, 330 (4th Cir. 2021). Presented with two laws, courts must treat both as effective unless they are in “irreconcilable conflict” or Congress’s intent to repeal is “clear and manifest.” Id. . Here, Kalshi’s preemption argument demands, rather than avoids, conflict between the CEA and IGRA. Under IGRA, tribes may regulate sports betting under tribal-state compacts. 25 C.F.R. § 502.4(c). But if sports-betting contracts are “swaps” subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the CFTC as Kalshi maintains, then all off-market sports betting—including sports betting conducted subject to a tribal-state compact—is prohibited by the CEA, and Congress effectively repealed IGRA. This Court should reject Kalshi’s boundless interpretation of “swap” and give effect to both Md. Bus. Reg. § 11-101(m) (defining “pari-mutuel betting” as “the system of betting in which those who successfully bet on horses that finish in specified positions share the mutuel pool, less the takeout and the breakage”). Further, even if sports betting requires a “house” (it does not), Kalshi’s subsidiary, “Kalshi Trading,” sets bet prices, holds the opposite side to its customers on trades, and effectively acts as the “house.” See Pl. Br. Supp. Prelim. Inj. Ex. 3 at 3–5, KalshiEX LLC v. Schuler , No. 2:25-cv-1165-SDM-CMV (S.D. Ohio Oct. 7, 2025), ECF No. 11-3.
10
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs