charitable purposes. 25 U.S.C. § 2710(b)(2)(B). “[T]ribal gaming operations cannot be understood as mere profit-making ventures that are wholly separate from the Tribes’ core governmental functions.” Bay Mills , 572 U.S. at 812–13 (Sotomayor, J., concurring). Tribes rely on gaming revenue because destructive former federal policies “left a devastating legacy” on tribes that are “largely unable to obtain substantial revenue by taxing members . . . [because] there is very little income, property, or sales [that tribal governments] could tax.” Id. (quoting Matthew L.M. Fletcher, In Pursuit of Tribal Economic Development as a Substitute for Reservation Tax Revenue , 80 N. D. L. Rev. 759, 771, 774 (2004)). If Kalshi’s arguments are upheld, the impact to tribal governments will be devastating. For all these reasons, Kalshi’s sports event contracts violate well-established federal Indian policy that supports tribal sovereignty and self-sufficiency through Indian gaming. CONCLUSION For these reasons, the Indian Gaming Association and National Congress of American Indians respectfully ask that this Court deny Kalshi’s motion for preliminary injunction. DATED: #### ##, 2025 Respectfully submitted,
Attorneys for Tribal Amici
15
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs