Case: 25-7516, 01/30/2026, DktEntry: 49.2, Page 28 of 41
principles and a practical understanding of legislative intent,” there must be “clear congressional authorization.” Id. at 723 (internal quotation marks omitted). Further, “Congress [does not] typically use oblique or elliptical language to empower an agency to make a ‘radical or fundamental change’ to a statutory scheme.” Id. (quoting MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. Am. Telephone & Telegraph Co. , 512 U.S. 218, 229 (1994)). In effect, Kalshi contends that the 2010 CEA amendments displaced state and tribal gaming regulations, nullified all tribal-state gaming compacts, legalized sports betting nationwide, and placed sports betting under the exclusive regulatory jurisdiction of the CFTC, all at a time when federal law broadly prohibited sports betting. This is unquestionably a “radical” and “fundamental” overhaul to both PASPA and IGRA, and certainly raises concerns of “economic and political significance.” Id. at 721. This Court therefore has significant “reason to hesitate” and should require “clear congressional authorization” before even considering Kalshi’s preemption argument. Id. at 721, 724. First, Congress must be clear when it “alters the federal-state framework by permitting federal encroachment upon a traditional state power.” Solid Waste Agency v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs , 531 U.S. 159, 172–73 (2001). Here, gaming regulation, and even sports-betting regulation specifically, has been understood to be within traditional state power. See Murphy v. NCAA , 584 U.S. 453, 474, 481–
21
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs