USCA4 Appeal: 25-1892
Doc: 44
Filed: 12/22/2025
Pg: 30 of 39
States’ special relationship with Indians, without a clear statement from Congress. See, e.g. , Morton v. Mancari , 417 U.S. 535, 550 (1974); Swinomish Indian Tribal Cmty. v. BNSF Ry. Co. , 951 F.3d 1142, 1159–60 (9th Cir. 2020); Shoshone- Bannock Tribes of Fort Hall Rsrv. v. DOI , 153 F.4th 748, 765 (9th Cir. 2025); see also Capt. Gaston LLC , 76 F.4th at 296 (listing “liberal constructions to benefit Indians” as an example of “background interpretive principles or rules of construction” that “influence [this Court’s] reading of a statute, sometimes even moving [the Court] to interpret a provision differently than [it] might otherwise”). This Court should therefore reject Kalshi’s arguments requiring an implied repeal of IGRA. II. The Major Questions Doctrine Forecloses Kalshi’s Theory. In 2010, federal law prohibited sports betting nationwide. Kalshi’s position thus requires interpreting the CEA not only to eradicate state and federal gaming laws by preemption or implied repeal, but to reverse federal policy from prohibition of sports betting to nationwide authorization. Whether Congress did so is a major question. The major questions doctrine requires courts to look for “clear congressional authorization” before adopting “an expansive construction of [a] statute” that would amount to an “extraordinary grant of regulatory authority” on issues with significant political and economic consequences . Capt. Gaston LLC , 76 F.4th at
22
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs