Case: 25-7516, 01/30/2026, DktEntry: 49.2, Page 24 of 41
sports-related event contracts listed and traded on a CFTC-registered trading venue,” and it advised DCMs to ensure customers “understand the possible effects should State regulatory actions … result in termination of sports-related event contract[s].” Id. at 2 & n.3. Kalshi’s arguments thus stand in sharp contrast to the CFTC’s own unwillingness to regulate sports betting. The Court should reject Kalshi’s efforts to expand the CFTC’s jurisdiction to a vast new area of regulation. 3. The Indian Canons of Construction require this Court to resolve any ambiguity in favor of tribes. Even if there were ambiguity as to whether Congress intended to repeal IGRA when it amended the CEA in 2010 (there is not), the Indian Canons of Construction require courts to resolve statutory ambiguities in favor of tribes. Montana v. Blackfeet Tribe of Indians , 471 U.S. 759, 766 (1985) (“[S]tatutes are to be construed liberally in favor of the Indians, with ambiguous provisions interpreted to their benefit.”); Artichoke Joe’s California Grand Casino v. Norton , 353 F.3d 712, 729 (9th Cir. 2003). Federal courts have consistently applied these canons over a half-century to ensure that later-enacted statutes of general applicability cannot repeal earlier-enacted legislation specifically designed to advance the United States’ special relationship with tribes, without a clear statement from Congress. See, e.g. , Morton v. Mancari , 417 U.S. 535, 550–51
17
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs