Case: 25-7516, 01/30/2026, DktEntry: 49.2, Page 32 of 41
make. Congress can regulate sports gambling directly, but if it elects not to do so, each State is free to act on its own.” Id. at 486. In other words, Kalshi’s deregulatory elephant was hidden in a statutory mousehole far too small for the Supreme Court to notice when deciding whether sports betting would be legal. Ignoring history, context, and common sense, Kalshi presents an alternate reality in which a statutory scheme whose scope is limited to addressing the risk, discovery, and dissemination of commodity pricing information, see 7 U.S.C. § 5(a)–(b), exclusively governs nationwide sports betting, including that occurring on Indian lands. Kalshi therefore creates a world where Congress repealed the comprehensive regulatory scheme set forth in IGRA, similar structures set up by state law, all tribal-state gaming compacts, and the federal policy requiring states to prohibit sports betting, as codified in PASPA. And Kalshi incredibly argues all of this happened without even a whisper of legislative intent. Kalshi’s revisionist history cannot withstand even the slightest scrutiny. As the lower court aptly stated, “It is absurd to think that Congress intended for DCMs to turn into nationwide gambling venues on every topic under the sun to the exclusion of state regulation and with no comparable federal regulator without ever mentioning that was the goal when Congress added swaps to the CEA in 2010.” 1- ER-21 (footnote omitted).
25
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs