USCA4 Appeal: 25-1892
Doc: 44
Filed: 12/22/2025
Pg: 21 of 39
Congress must also have intended to completely override the entire purpose and function of IGRA, which is to recognize tribal sovereignty to conduct and regulate gaming activity that occurs on Indian lands. See 25 U.S.C. § 2701(5). Furthermore, under Kalshi’s theory, all sports betting pursuant to a tribal- state compact is illegal. See ECF No. 27, at 33, 35–36. With one inapplicable exception, the CEA prohibits off-market swaps. See 7 U.S.C. § 2(e). Consequently, if all sports-betting contracts are swaps, “then all sports betting must be done on a [Designated Contract Market (‘DCM’)].” N. Am. Derivatives Exch., Inc. v. Nevada Gaming Control Bd. ( Crypto.com ), No. 2:25-CV-00978, 2025 WL 2916151, at *9 (D. Nev. Oct. 14, 2025). Kalshi’s preemption argument thus does double violence to IGRA. By permitting Kalshi to offer sports betting on tribal land, that argument sweeps aside Congress’s recognition that “Indian tribes have the exclusive right to regulate gaming activity on Indian lands.” 25 U.S.C. § 2701(5). It also prohibits tribes from offering sports betting that IGRA plainly authorizes. This implied repeal is not limited to sports betting. Kalshi’s preemption argument depends on embracing an interpretation of “swap” that has “no limiting principle.” Hendrick , 2025 WL 3286282, at *6; see Crypto.com , 2025 WL 2916151, at *9. Kalshi’s definition of “an event or contingency associated with a potential financial, economic, or commercial consequence” is so broad that it
13
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs