USCA4 Appeal: 25-1892
Doc: 44
Filed: 12/22/2025
Pg: 20 of 39
approved tribal-state gaming compacts that define “sports betting” to include exactly the type of betting that Kalshi offers. 6 B. Kalshi’s preemption argument would impliedly repeal IGRA. Kalshi posits that the CFTC has the exclusive authority to regulate all sports betting. If the CEA governs Kalshi’s sports-betting contracts on Indians lands, then Congress must have intended to repeal key provisions of IGRA that expressly grant regulatory authority over such activity to states, tribes, the National Indian Gaming Commission (“NIGC”), and the Department of Justice. See 25 U.S.C. §§ 2701(5), 2710(d); 18 U.S.C. § 1166(d). 7 But moreover, by granting the CFTC exclusive jurisdiction over nationwide sports betting, including on Indian lands, 6 See, e.g. , 2024 Amendments to the Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians and State of Wisconsin Gaming Compact of 1992, Part IV.A.12 (Mar. 29, 2024) (defining “event wagering” as “accepting wagers on the outcomes of, and occurrences within, sports and non-sports games, competitions, and matches”); Agreement Between the Mohegan Tribe of Indians of Connecticut and the State of Connecticut, Section 1(nn) (Sep. 10, 2021) (defining “sports wagering” as “risking or accepting any money … or other thing of value for gain contingent in whole or in part, (A) by any system or method of wagering, … and (B) based on (1) a live sporting event or a portion or portions of a live sporting event, including future or propositional events during such an event, or (2) the individual performance statistics of an athlete or athletes in a sporting event or a combination of sporting events”). 7 Kalshi’s sports-event contracts also violate other federal laws, including the Wire Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1084. See JA170 (holding that Kalshi’s proposed interpretation of the CEA “would necessarily entail at least a partial implied repeal of the IGRA and the Wire Act”); ECF No. 27, at 36.
12
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs