The legislative history of the CEA amendments further evidences that Congress did not clearly or manifestly intend to repeal IGRA, but rather reveals Congress’s concern about event contracts facilitating gambling, and in particular sports betting. Indeed, as mentioned above, Congress expressly intended the Special Rule to prevent derivatives contracts from being used to facilitate gambling. See 156 Cong. Rec. S5906–7 (2010). Rather than demonstrate intent to repeal federal gaming laws, this legislative history shows the exact opposite: Congress designed the Special Rule to prevent sports betting through supposed event contracts. Additionally, IGRA’s criminal provisions provide that the DOJ has “exclusive jurisdiction over criminal prosecutions of violations of State gambling laws that are made applicable . . . to Indian country” under IGRA, unless tribes otherwise consented to the transfer of criminal jurisdiction to the state. 18 U.S.C. § 1166(d). If Kalshi’s sports event contracts are subject to exclusive CFTC jurisdiction, as Kalshi contends, then the DOJ’s jurisdiction over such criminal prosecutions will also have been impliedly repealed. However, Congress expressly disclaimed such a repeal in the text of the CEA. 7 U.S.C. § 16(e) (“Nothing in this chapter shall supersede or preempt . . . criminal prosecution under any Federal criminal statute.”). It is impossible for the CFTC to exercise exclusive jurisdiction over sports event contracts while the DOJ exercises its exclusive jurisdiction over criminal prosecutions of violations of state gambling laws made applicable by IGRA to Indian Country. Kalshi cannot meet the “heavy burden” of proving congressional intent to repeal, see Epic Sys. Corp. , 584 U.S. at 510, because there is a reasonable way to interpret the CEA that would give full effect to both the CEA and IGRA: sports event contracts are not “swaps” subject to the CFTC’s exclusive jurisdiction, but are in fact sports betting subject to IGRA and other
12
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs