given the CFTC’s categorical prohibition on event contracts involving “gaming” and illicit activity, Kalshi is not authorized to offer such contracts under the CEA. Because these statutes are capable of coexistence, the court must read both in a way that gives effect to both. Finally, IGRA provides very specific permissions and prohibitions related to sports betting on Indian lands. Therefore, Supreme Court precedent dictates that IGRA’s specific prohibitions and permissions must govern general prohibitions or permissions, such as Kalshi’s interpretation of the catch-all definition of “swap.” Thus, the CEA does not impliedly repeal IGRA, and IGRA governs Kalshi’s sports event contracts. II. Ignoring the Applicability of IGRA Raises Serious Policy Concerns and Violates the Federal Indian Policy Kalshi’s sports betting violates well-established federal Indian policy supporting tribal sovereignty and self-determination. The U.S. Supreme Court has “consistently recognized that Indian tribes retain ‘attributes of sovereignty over both their members and their territory.’” Cabazon , 480 U.S. at 207 (quoting United States v. Mazurie , 419 U.S. 544, 557 (1975)). Additionally, “[t]he Constitution grants Congress broad general powers to legislate in respect to Indian tribes, powers that are ‘plenary and exclusive,’” thus, “tribes remain independent sovereigns under our Constitution.” Michigan v. Bay Mills Indian Community , 572 U.S. 782, 789 (2014). A “key goal of the Federal Government is to render Tribes
23
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs