USCA4 Appeal: 25-1892
Doc: 44
Filed: 12/22/2025
Pg: 22 of 39
necessarily includes betting on other casino games. If Kalshi’s preemption argument were accepted, then IGRA would be largely meaningless. Kalshi attempts to sidestep the implied repeal of IGRA by asserting that IGRA “does not authorize tribes to regulate gaming available over the internet.” Appellant Br. at 55, ECF No. 16 (quoting 25 U.S.C § 2701). But the issue here isn’t whether tribes can regulate Kalshi’s sports betting, it is whether Congress set up a regulatory system that is incompatible with IGRA. And Kalshi’s theory means it can offer sports betting even to people physically located on tribal lands contrary to tribal prohibitions, just as it does in states notwithstanding state law prohibitions. Ironically, in the very same paragraph that Kalshi argues IGRA does not authorize tribes to regulate online gaming, it cites West Flagler Associates, Ltd. v. Haaland , in which the D.C. Circuit held that IGRA allows states and tribes to “allocate jurisdiction” over the regulation of internet gaming conducted by a tribe throughout the state, including on its Indian lands. 71 F.4th 1059, 1061–62, 1066 (D.C. Cir. 2023), cert. denied , 144 S. Ct. 2671 (2024). IGRA’s implementing regulations also expressly state that tribes can regulate online gaming pursuant to the terms of their IGRA compacts. See 25 C.F.R. § 293.26. IGRA, therefore, clearly recognizes tribes’ authority to regulate internet gaming. Kalshi also argues that the Unlawful Internet Gaming Enforcement Act (“UIGEA”), not IGRA, solely governs the online gaming aspect of its sports-
14
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs