Case: 25-7516, 01/30/2026, DktEntry: 49.2, Page 3 of 41
TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .................................................................................... ii IDENTITY AND INTERESTS OF AMICI ..............................................................1 INTRODUCTION .....................................................................................................2 ARGUMENT .............................................................................................................5 I. Congress Did Not Impliedly Repeal IGRA................................................5 A. IGRA’s Structure ....................................................................................5 B. Congress Did Not Repeal IGRA or Prohibit Tribes from Conducting Sports Wagering When It Enacted the CEA’s Definition of a “Swap” in 2010. ........................................................................................................6 C. Kalshi’s Theory Does Not Meet the Standard for Implied Repeals. ....10 1. Kalshi’s sports-betting contracts are not “swaps.” ............................12 2. Congress did not manifest clear intent to repeal IGRA or to make the CFTC the nation’s sole gaming regulator. ..........................................13 3. The Indian Canons of Construction require this Court to resolve any ambiguity in favor of tribes. ................................................................17 D. IGRA Regulates Online Gaming on Tribes’ Indian Lands-Including Kalshi’s Sports-Betting Contracts.........................................................18 II. The Major Questions Doctrine Forecloses Kalshi’s Theory....................20 III. Kalshi’s Preemption Argument Would Violate the Private Nondelegation Doctrine. ...................................................................................................26 CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................28
i
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs