Case: 25-7516, 01/30/2026, DktEntry: 49.2, Page 13 of 41
articulated policy goals to: (1) “promot[e] tribal economic development, self- sufficiency, and strong tribal governments”; (2) “provide a statutory basis for regulation” that protects tribes’ ability to be the primary beneficiary of gaming on their lands; and (3) create a federal regulatory agency to adopt federal standards and protect tribal gaming as a means of generating tribal revenue. 25 U.S.C. § 2702. Congress made it abundantly clear that tribes—not private entities—must benefit from any gaming conducted on their Indian lands. See 25 U.S.C. § 2710(b)(2)(A), (d)(2)(A). For many tribal governments, gaming is not merely a “commercial” endeavor; rather, it is essential to their self-determination. See Chicken Ranch Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians v. California , 42 F.4th 1024, 1032 (9th Cir. 2022) (“Class III gaming is not only a source of substantial revenue for tribes, but the lifeblood on which many tribes ha[ve] come to rely .” (internal quotation marks and citations omitted) (emphasis added)). 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. Kalshi does not assert that its conduct complies with IGRA. In fact, Kalshi has made no attempt to ensure that its sports-wagering activities on Indian lands across the country comply with IGRA. Instead, Kalshi argues that Congress’s definition of a single term—“swaps”—within a statute whose entire purpose is to address the risk, discovery, and dissemination of commodity prices, 7 U.S.C.
6
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs