If taken as true, Kalshi’s argument below—that the CEA governs and the CTFC has exclusive jurisdiction over Kalshi’s sports event contracts—presumes that the CEA preempts IGRA in its entirety. In fact, Kalshi has made such an argument before the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, stating: “IGRA’s definition of ‘gaming’ does not refer to sports event contracts, and even if it did, the CEA’s exclusive jurisdiction provision would displace any attempt by tribes to regulate those contracts.” Pl.’s Reply in Support of Prelim. Inj., KalshiEX LLC v. Martin , No. 1:25-cv-01283-ABA, ECF No. 29 at 7 (D. Md. May 19, 2025) (citations omitted). This is incorrect. While the issue is more accurately one concerning a conflict of law, the CEA neither preempts nor conflicts with IGRA, and IGRA therefore governs Kalshi’s sports event contracts on Indian lands. Congress has been regulating commodity futures for more than a century, originally to support and protect markets for agricultural commodities. See Merrill Lynch v. Curran , 456 U.S. 353, 357–63 (1982). Following the 2008 financial crisis, Congress amended the CEA, in part, to include the “Special Rule” concerning event contracts. 7 U.S.C. § 7a-2(c)(5)(C). The Special Rule authorizes the CFTC to prohibit event contracts that are contrary to the public interest, including certain enumerated categories that Congress considered may be contrary to the public interest. These enumerated categories expressly include gaming or activity that is unlawful under federal or state law. Id.
6
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs