Case: 25-7516, 01/30/2026, DktEntry: 49.2, Page 25 of 41
(1974); Swinomish Indian Tribal Cmty. v. BNSF Ry. Co. , 951 F.3d 1142, 1159–60 (9th Cir. 2020); Shoshone-Bannock Tribes , 153 F.4th at 765. This Court should therefore reject Kalshi’s preemption argument requiring an implied repeal of IGRA. D. IGRA Regulates Online Gaming on Tribes’ Indian Lands- Including Kalshi’s Sports-Betting Contracts. Kalshi has tried to avoid the implied repeal of IGRA required by its preemption arguments by asserting that IGRA “does not authorize tribes to regulate gaming available over the internet” and is therefore inapplicable to its sports-betting activity. See Appellant Br. at 55, KalshiEX LLC v. Martin , No. 25- 1892 (4th Cir. Oct. 15, 2025), ECF No. 16; see also Pl.’s Resp. in Opp. to Emergency Mot. to Dissolve Prelim. Inj. at 17, Hendrick , No. 2:25-cv-00575 (Oct. 31, 2025), ECF No. 183. But the issue isn’t whether tribes can regulate Kalshi’s sports betting on Indian lands (they can). Rather, it is whether Congress set up a regulatory system that is incompatible with IGRA. And Kalshi’s theory means that it can offer sports betting to people physically located on Indian lands contrary to tribal prohibitions, just as it does in states notwithstanding state law prohibitions. Ironically, in arguing that IGRA does not authorize tribes to regulate online gaming, Kalshi cited West Flagler Associates, Ltd. v. Haaland , which held that IGRA allows states and tribes to allocate jurisdiction over the regulation of internet
18
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs