Case: 2:25-cv-01165-SDM-CMV Doc #: 34-1 Filed: 11/14/25 Page: 13 of 22 PAGEID #: 531
place, receive, or otherwise knowingly transmit a bet or wager by any means which involves the use, at least in part, of the Internet where such bet or wager is unlawful under any applicable Federal or State law in the State or Tribal lands in which the bet or wager is initiated, received, or otherwise made.”); California v. Iipay Nation of Santa Ysabel , 898 F.3d 960, 967 (9th Cir. 2018) (rejecting argument that “patron’s action in selecting a wager” constitutes a “pre-gaming communication, … not gaming activity” under the UIGEA because “[t]hat conduct is … subject to the provisions of the UIGEA as a ‘bet or wager’ that is initiated through the internet.” (quoting 31 U.S.C. § 5362(1))). Further, IGRA facilitates a comprehensive federal scheme for the regulation of online class III gaming by way of compacting. See , e.g. , Gaming Corp. of Am. v. Dorsey & Whitney , 88 F.3d 536, 546 (8th Cir. 1996). A decision in Kalshi’s favor would upend IGRA’s inter- jurisdictional framework for class III gaming by allowing DCMs unilaterally—i.e., without the consent of tribes or states, or approval by the Secretary of the Interior—to offer sports betting on Indian lands. 2. Kalshi cannot overcome the presumption against implied repeal The Supreme Court applies the “‘strong presumption’ that repeals by implication are ‘disfavored’ and that ‘Congress will specifically address’ preexisting law when it wishes to suspend its normal operations in a later statute.” Epic Sys. Corp. v. Lewis , 584 U.S. 497, 510 (2018) (citing United States v. Fausto , 584 U.S. 439, 452, 453 (1988)). Congress’s intent to repeal must be “clear and manifest.” Posadas v. Nat’l City Bank of N.Y. , 296 U.S. 497, 503 (same); Harrop v. R.I. Div. of Lotteries , No. PC-2019-5273, 2020 WL 3033494, at *13 (R.I. Super. Ct. June 1, 2020) (upholding legality of online wagering because state statute deemed casinos’ offering of statewide online wagers to occur where received at hosting casino facility), appeal dismissed , No. SU-2020-0183-A (R.I. Dec. 9, 2022). Neither the CEA nor its implementing regulations provide such deeming authority for Kalshi’s sports bets.
12
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs