USCA4 Appeal: 25-1892
Doc: 44
Filed: 12/22/2025
Pg: 29 of 39
“taken any official action to approve the listing for trading of sports-related event contracts on any DCM.” CTFC Staff Letter No. 25-36 at 2 (Sep. 30, 2025). Referring to the very opinion that Kalshi asks this Court to reverse, the CFTC noted that “at least one federal district court has found that the [CEA] does not preempt the application of State gambling, wagering, and gaming laws to sports- related event contracts listed and traded on a CFTC-registered trading venue,” and it advised DCMs to ensure customers “understand the possible effects should State regulator actions … result in termination of sports-related event contracts.” Id. at 2 n.3–4. Kalshi’s arguments thus stand in sharp contrast to the CFTC’s own “lack of confidence that it has [the] authority” to regulate sports betting. Capt. Gaston LLC , 76 F.4th at 299. The Court should reject Kalshi’s private efforts to expand the CFTC’s jurisdiction to a vast new area of regulation. 3. The Indian Canons of Construction implore this Court to resolve any ambiguity in favor of tribes. Even if there were ambiguity as to whether Congress intended to repeal IGRA when it amended the CEA in 2010 (there is not), the Indian Canons of Construction require courts to resolve statutory ambiguities in favor of tribes. Bryan v. Itasca Cnty. , 426 U.S. 373, 392 (1976); See Capt. Gaston LLC, 76 F.4th at 296. Moreover, later-enacted statutes of general applicability cannot repeal earlier-enacted legislation that is specifically designed to advance the United
21
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs