Case 1:25-cv-08846-AT Document 60-1 Filed 12/03/25 Page 11 of 31
governments through revenue-sharing agreements, tax revenue, and economic stimulus. In this regard, IGRA has been incredibly successful. 2 KalshiEX, LLC (“Kalshi”) has unlawfully and unfairly entered into the gaming market, which adversely impacts tribal gaming revenue and infringes upon the benefit of tribes’ bargained-for compacts. 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 Kalshi’s sports bets, including on Indian lands—are both legally incorrect and require this Court to conclude that Congress intended the CEA to 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) 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 Kalshi’s motion for preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order. I. IGRA Governs Kalshi’s Sports Betting Conduct on Indian Lands A. The CEA does not exclusively govern gaming-related sports-event contracts In 2010, Congress amended the CEA, in part, to allow for “event contracts.” See 7 U.S.C. § 7a-2(c)(5)(C). Recognizing that some might try to exploit these so-called event contracts to
2 See, e.g. , National Indian Gaming Commission, FY 2023 Gross Gaming Revenue Report 4–5 (July 2024), available at https://www.nigc.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/GGR23_Final.pdf.
11
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs