Case: 3:25-cv-00698 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/20/25 Page 6 of 47
here, it is the division of Robinhood that has partnered with Kalshi to offer a prediction market hub, allowing persons located both on and off the Nation’s Indian Lands to place illegal, unregulated wagers in the form of event contracts. 14. The above-named defendants are collectively referred to as “Defendants.” The true names and capacities of the Defendants sued herein as DOE DEFENDANTS 1 through 20, inclusive, are currently unknown to Plaintiff, who therefore sue such Defendants by fictitious names. Each of the Defendants designated herein as a DOE is legally responsible for the unlawful acts alleged herein. Plaintiff will seek leave of Court to amend the complaint to reflect the true names and capacities of the DOE Defendants when such identities become known. GAMING ON INDIAN LANDS PURSUANT TO THE INDIAN GAMING REGULATORY ACT 15. Courts have long recognized that Congress has “exclusive authority” over Indian affairs. Michigan v. Bay Mills Indian Community , 572 U.S. 782, 788-90 (2014). This exclusive authority is rooted in the Indian Commerce Clause (art. I, § 8, cl. 3) and the Supremacy Clause (art. VI, cl. 2) of the Constitution, which gives Congress “the exclusive and absolute power to regulate commerce with the Indian tribes, — a power as broad and as free from restrictions as that to regulate commerce with foreign nations.” United States v. Forty-Three Gallons of Whiskey, 93 U.S. 188, 194 (1876); Worcester v. Georgia 31 U.S. 515, 551-57, 558–60 (1832); Seminole Tribe v. Fla., 517 U.S. 44, 62 (1996). 16. The Indian Commerce Clause authorizes Congress “[t]o regulate Commerce . . . with the Indian Tribes.” Art. I, §8, cl. 3. The United States Supreme Court has interpreted the Indian Commerce Clause to reach not only trade, but certain “Indian affairs,” as well. Cotton Petroleum Corp. v. New Mexico , 490 U. S. 163, 192 (1989).
6
QB\168080.00083\98102991.1
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs