Case 1:25-cv-08846-AT Document 60-1 Filed 12/03/25 Page 27 of 31
Thus, each bet Kalshi offers on Indian lands violates IGRA, undermines tribal sovereignty, and reduces tribal gaming revenue and government funding. II. Ignoring the Applicability of IGRA Raises Serious Policy Concerns and Violates Federal Indian Policy Kalshi’s sports-event contracts violate well-established federal Indian policy. The Supreme Court has “consistently recognized that Indian tribes retain ‘attributes of sovereignty over both their members and their territory.’” Cabazon , 480 U.S. at 207 (quoting United States v. Mazurie , 419 U.S. 544, 557 (1975)). While “the Constitution grants Congress broad general powers to legislate in respect to Indian tribes,” United States v. Lara , 541 U.S. 193, 200 (2004), “[Indian tribes] remain ‘separate sovereigns pre-existing the Constitution,’” Michigan v. Bay Mills Indian Cmty. , 572 U.S. 782, 788 (2014) (quoting Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez , 436 U.S. 49, 56 (1978)). Congress has expressly declared its commitment to supporting Tribal self-determination and self-governance. 25 U.S.C. § 5302(b). The Executive Branch has consistently affirmed this policy. See e.g. , Exec. Order No. 13,175, § 2(c), 65 Fed. Reg. 67,249 (Nov. 6, 2000); Exec. Order No. 13,647, § 1(a), 78 Fed. Reg. 39,539 (Jun. 26, 2013). In Cabazon , the Supreme Court recognized the importance of “the congressional goal of Indian self-government, including its overriding goal of encouraging tribal self-sufficiency and economic development[,]” and noted that federal agencies “ha[ve] sought to implement these policies by promoting tribal bingo enterprises.” 480 U.S. at 216–17 (internal quotations omitted). Additionally, tribal casinos often provide “the sole source of revenues for the
lawful. Under IGRA, engaging in class III gaming on Indian lands is prohibited unless in accordance with an IGRA compact. 25 U.S.C. § 2710(d)(1). Neither the CEA nor UIGEA repeals this pillar.
27
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs