Ignoring this history and the longstanding principles of federal statutory interpretation, Kalshi now presents an alternate reality—one 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. § 3(b), exclusively governs nationwide sports betting, including sports betting that occurs on Indian lands, thereby preempting the comprehensive regulatory scheme set forth in IGRA. Clearly, this cannot be the case. The CEA is only preemptive with respect to lawful transactions that fall under the CFTC’s exclusive jurisdiction. See 7 U.S.C. § 2(a)(1)(A). Kalshi’s sports event contracts, and other similar sports event contracts, are neither lawful transactions nor transactions that fall under the CFTC’s exclusive jurisdiction. 1. Kalshi’s sports event contracts are expressly prohibited and therefore beyond the scope of the CEA Kalshi’s sports event contracts fall within the class of contracts the CFTC categorically prohibited as contrary to the public interest. 17 C.F.R. § 40.11(a)(1). Thus, Kalshi is not authorized to offer such contracts under the CEA, and such contracts fall beyond the scope of the CEA and the CFTC’s jurisdiction. The CEA’s Special Rule authorizes the CFTC to determine that event contracts are “contrary to the public interest” if such event contracts involve “activity that is unlawful under any Federal or State law” and “gaming.” 7 U.S.C. § 7a-2(c)(5)(C)(i). Where the CFTC makes such a determination, the CEA
9
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs