Case: 25-7516, 01/30/2026, DktEntry: 49.2, Page 21 of 41
(ii). The CFTC acted consistently with Congress’s intent by promulgating its blanket prohibition of event contracts involving gaming. 17 C.F.R. § 40.11(a)(1). The CFTC explained that its “prohibition of certain ‘gaming’ contracts is consistent with Congress’s intent to ‘prevent gambling through the futures markets’ and to ‘protect the public interest from gaming and other events contracts.’” Provisions Common to Registered Entities, 76 Fed. Reg.44776, 44786 (Jul. 27, 2011) (footnotes omitted). Thus, the CFTC recognized that the Special Rule reinforced Congress’s existing policy against sports betting. Kalshi even acknowledged this fact in a brief filed with the D.C. Circuit 14 months ago (and mere weeks before launching its nationwide sports betting app). See Appellee Br. at 41, KalshiEX LLC v. CFTC , No. 24-5205 (D.C. Cir. Nov. 15, 2024) (“An event or contract thus involves ‘gaming’ if it is contingent on a game or game-related event. The classic example is a contract on the outcome of a sporting event; as the legislative history directly confirms, Congress did not want sports betting to be conducted on derivatives markets .” (emphasis added)). The Special Rule and the CFTC’s regulations undermine any claim that Congress intended to repeal IGRA and legalize sports betting. That the CEA and IGRA
14
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs