Case: 25-7516, 01/30/2026, DktEntry: 49.2, Page 26 of 41
gaming conducted by a tribe throughout the state, including on its Indian lands. Brief of Appellant at 55, Martin , No. 25-1892; see W. Flagler Assocs., Ltd. v. Haaland , 71 F.4th 1059, 1061–62, 1066 (D.C. Cir. 2023), cert denied , 144 S. Ct. 2671 (2024). IGRA’s implementing regulations also expressly state that tribes can regulate online gaming pursuant to the terms of their IGRA compacts. See 25 C.F.R. § 293.26. Kalshi also argued below that the Unlawful Internet Gaming Enforcement Act (“UIGEA”), not tribal-state IGRA agreements or state gaming law, solely governs the online gaming aspect of its sports-betting contracts, and UIGEA excludes DCM transactions from its definition of “bet or wager.” 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. By claiming that Congress’s exclusion of DCM transactions from the definition of “bet or wager” in 31 U.S.C. § 5362 is “entitled to great weight” as an example of Congress’s intent to preempt all state (and tribal) gaming laws via the CEA, Kalshi implies that UIGEA also somehow preempts IGRA and all tribal-state IGRA agreements. Id. But this ignores UIGEA’s own language that “[n]o provision of this subchapter shall be construed as altering, limiting, or extending any Federal or State law or Tribal-State compact prohibiting, permitting, or regulating gambling within the United States.” 31 U.S.C. § 5361(b). UIGEA “prevents using the internet to circumvent existing state
19
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs