USCA4 Appeal: 25-1892
Doc: 44
Filed: 12/22/2025
Pg: 37 of 39
restrain us from resolving constitutional challenges when a case can be resolved on other grounds.”). Moreover, “[a]ny delegation of regulatory authority ‘to private persons whose interests may be and often are adverse to the interests of others in the same business’ is disfavored.” Pittston Co. v. United States , 368 F.3d 385, 394 (4th Cir. 2004) (internal quotations omitted). Here, Kalshi’s interests in offering lucrative nationwide sports betting are adverse to the interests of tribes, states, and businesses offering regulated sports betting. The effects of Kalshi’s self- certification go even further; in Kalshi’s view, it could block tribes and states from regulating that which has long been within their sovereign authority to regulate simply by listing sports-betting contracts on its exchange. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the Tribal Amici respectfully request that the Court affirm the lower court’s decision.
29
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs