Case: 2:25-cv-01165-SDM-CMV Doc #: 34-1 Filed: 11/14/25 Page: 4 of 22 PAGEID #: 522
bargained-for compacts. Additionally, by offering sports-event contracts to people on Indian lands under the guise of commodity trading pursuant to the Commodity Exchange Act (“CEA”), Kalshi impedes tribes’ inherent sovereign right to regulate gaming activity on those lands. Kalshi’s arguments justifying this infringement—that the CEA gives the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”) exclusive jurisdiction over these sports event contracts on Indian lands—are not only an incorrect reading of the CEA, but would also effectively repeal IGRA. Contrary to Kalshi’s arguments: (1) the CEA does not exclusively govern its gaming- related sports-event contracts; (2) such contracts are expressly prohibited by the CEA and CFTC regulations; (3) the CEA does not impliedly repeal IGRA; and (4) federal, state, and tribal gaming laws (including IGRA), therefore, apply to and govern its sports wagering activity. Because Kalshi has failed to establish a likelihood of success on the merits, this Court should deny its motion for preliminary injunction. I. IGRA Governs Kalshi’s Sports Betting Conduct on Indian Lands A. The CEA does not exclusively govern gaming-related sports-event contracts Congress has been regulating commodity futures for more than a century, historically focusing on agricultural commodities. See Merrill Lynch v. Curran , 456 U.S. 353, 357–63 (1982). In 2010, Congress amended the CEA, in part, to allow for “event contracts” through the “Special Rule.” See 7 U.S.C. § 7a-2(c)(5)(C). Recognizing that some might try to exploit these newly created registrants to offer dangerous contracts disguised as “swaps,” Congress included the Special Rule to prevent this end run. Among the categories of dangerous contracts that Congress wanted to keep off of these exchanges were those related to gaming and those that contravened state law. Id.
3
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs