Cover | 1 |
A. Agenda | 2 |
B. Testimony | 4 |
C. One Pager | 13 |
D. CFTC Advanced | 15 |
E. DTLL | 47 |
F. Final IGA | 48 |
G. CFTC | 61 |
G. 1. CFTC - Amicus Briefs | 62 |
9th Cir Tribal Amicus Brief(2-13-26) | 62 |
29-1 - Tribal Amicus Brief | 104 |
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES | 107 |
CONCISE STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES | 111 |
CONTROLLING OR MOST APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY | 112 |
STATEMENT OF INTEREST | 113 |
INTRODUCTION | 113 |
ARGUMENT | 116 |
I. Congress Did Not Repeal IGRA or the Tribal-State Gaming Compacts Between the State of Michigan and Michigan Tribes. | 116 |
A. IGRA’s Structure | 116 |
B. Michigan’s Cooperative Sports-Betting Regulatory Structure | 117 |
C. Congress Did Not Repeal IGRA or Prohibit Tribes from Conducting Sports Wagering When It Amended the CEA in 2010. | 121 |
D. Coinbase’s Theory Does Not Meet the Standard for Implied Repeals. | 125 |
1. Coinbase’s sports-betting contracts are not “swaps.” | 126 |
2. Congress did not manifest clear intent to repeal IGRA or to make the CFTC the nation’s sole gaming regulator. | 127 |
3. The Indian Canons of Construction require this Court to resolve any ambiguity in favor of tribes. | 129 |
II. The Major Questions Doctrine Forecloses Coinbase’s Theory. | 130 |
CONCLUSION | 134 |
31. IGA's Mtn for Leave to File Amicus Brief - 9.30.25 | 136 |
32. IGA Amicus Brief - 9.30.25 | 143 |
38.1 27 States and DC Amicus Brief | 164 |
Interests of Amici Curiae | 172 |
Background | 174 |
I. State and Federal Regulation of Sports Wagering | 174 |
A. Early State Prohibitions and the Federal Wire Act | 175 |
B. IGRA | 177 |
C. PASPA and UIGEA | 178 |
D. Murphy and Its Aftermath | 181 |
II. Kalshi’s Unlicensed Sports-Wagering Platform | 182 |
III. Nationwide Litigation Landscape | 185 |
Argument | 187 |
I. IGRA bars Kalshi from offering sports wagers on Indian lands. | 188 |
II. UIGEA does not excuse Kalshi’s IGRA violation. | 192 |
A. UIGEA does not supplant IGRA’s substantive prohibitions. | 192 |
B. The scope of UIGEA’s exception for certain CEA-related transactions is immaterial. | 195 |
III. The CEA does not excuse Kalshi’s IGRA violation. | 197 |
A. Kalshi’s interpretation conflicts with the text and structure of the CEA and related statutes. | 198 |
B. The necessary implications of Kalshi’s interpretation further undermine its interpretation. | 201 |
C. The clear-statement rule and presumption against implied repeal foreclose Kalshi’s interpretation. | 203 |
Conclusion | 206 |
Certificate of Compliance | 210 |
43-1. Tribal Amicus Brief - Coinbase v. Illinois | 211 |
INTRODUCTION | 211 |
ARGUMENT | 214 |
I. Congress Did Not Impliedly Repeal IGRA. | 214 |
A. IGRA’s Structure | 214 |
B. Congress Did Not Repeal IGRA or Prohibit Tribes from Conducting Sports Betting When It Enacted the CEA’s Definition of a “Swap” in 2010. | 215 |
C. Coinbase’s Theory Does Not Meet the Standard for Implied Repeals. | 217 |
1. Coinbase’s sports-betting contracts are not “swaps.” | 217 |
2. Congress did not manifest clear intent to repeal IGRA or to make the CFTC the nation’s sole gaming regulator. | 218 |
3. The Indian Canons of Construction require this Court to resolve any ambiguity in favor of tribes. | 220 |
II. The Major Questions Doctrine Forecloses Coinbase’s Theory. | 221 |
CONCLUSION | 225 |
56-1. IGA Amicus Brief - 1.06.26 | 228 |
I. Tribes Have the Inherent and Exclusive Authority to Conduct, Regulate, and Enjoin Class III Gaming that Occurs on Their Lands. | 231 |
II. Defendants’ Class III Gaming Activity is Prohibited on Ho-Chunk’s Tribal Lands. | 235 |
A. Defendants’ Sports-Betting Activities Takes Place on the Nation’s Indian Lands. | 235 |
B. Defendants’ Sports-Betting Activity is not Authorized in Accordance with IGRA. | 238 |
56-1. IGA Amicus Brief - 1.16.26 | 241 |
STATEMENT OF INTEREST | 242 |
INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT | 242 |
ARGUMENT | 244 |
I. Congress Did Not Repeal IGRA or the Tribal-State Gaming Compacts Between the State of Connecticut and Connecticut Tribes. | 244 |
D. Kalshi’s Theory Does Not Meet the Standard for Implied Repeals. | 253 |
2. Congress did not manifest clear intent to repeal IGRA or to make the CFTC the nation’s sole gaming regulator. | 255 |
3. The Indian Canons of Construction implore this Court to resolve any ambiguity in favor of tribes. | 258 |
II. The Major Questions Doctrine Forecloses Kalshi’s Theory. | 260 |
III. Kalshi’s Preemption Argument Would Violate the Private Nondelegation Doctrine. | 265 |
CONCLUSION | 267 |
58-1. IGA Amicus Brief - 1.16.26 | 270 |
STATEMENT OF INTEREST | 271 |
INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT | 271 |
ARGUMENT | 273 |
I. Congress Did Not Repeal IGRA or the Tribal-State Gaming Compacts Between the State of Connecticut and Connecticut Tribes. | 273 |
D. Coinbases’s Theory Does Not Meet the Standard for Implied Repeals. | 282 |
2. Congress did not manifest clear intent to repeal IGRA or to make the CFTC the nation’s sole gaming regulator. | 284 |
3. The Indian Canons of Construction implore this Court to resolve any ambiguity in favor of tribes. | 287 |
II. The Major Questions Doctrine Forecloses Coinbase’s Theory. | 290 |
III. Coinbase’s Preemption Argument Would Violate the Private Nondelegation Doctrine. | 294 |
CONCLUSION | 296 |
Crypto.com - CFTC Amicus Brief | 299 |
TABLE OF CONTENTS | 300 |
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES | 302 |
INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE | 309 |
BACKGROUND | 311 |
I. The Commodity Exchange Act Provides the Regulatory Framework for Commodity Derivatives Markets in the United States. | 311 |
II. The Development of Federal Regulation of U.S. Futures and Swaps Markets. | 313 |
A. The Origins of Federal Oversight of Derivatives Regulation. | 313 |
B. Congress Gave the CFTC “Exclusive” Jurisdiction over Futures Trading in 1974. | 316 |
C. Congress Reinforced and Clarified the CFTC’s Exclusive Jurisdiction After 1974. | 317 |
D. Congress Embraced Preemption as to Swaps Transactions in the Dodd Frank Act. | 321 |
ARGUMENT | 322 |
I. Event Contracts Trading on CFTC-Regulated Markets Is Subject to the CFTC’s Exclusive Jurisdiction. | 322 |
A. Under the Plain Language of CEA Section 1(a)(47), Event Contracts Are “Swaps.” | 322 |
B. Sports Event Contracts Are Associated with Potential Financial, Economic, and Commercial Consequences. | 327 |
II. The CEA Preempts Other Federal and State Actors from Exercising Regulatory Authority Over Swaps, Including Event Contracts, on CFTC-Regulated Markets. | 329 |
A. The CEA Was Intended to, and Does, Occupy the Field of Regulating Commodity Derivatives Exchanges. | 329 |
B. The “Savings Clause” in CEA § 2(a)(1)(A) Does Not Nullify its Field Preemptive Effect; It Preserves Traditional State Powers Over State-Regulated Gambling. | 332 |
C. State Gambling Laws Are Conflict Preempted. | 334 |
III. Subjecting Derivatives Listed on a CFTC-Registered DCM to State Regulation Would Have Destabilizing Economic Effects. | 336 |
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE | 338 |
Doc 74 - Motion for Leave to File Amicus Brief | 340 |
Doc,. 41-1 - Tribal Amicus Brief | 348 |
Doc. 36.1 - Tribal Amicus Brief | 372 |
Doc. 44 - Tribal Amici Brief | 414 |
Doc. 48.1 - State Amicus Brief - Kalshi v. Hendrick (9th Cir.) | 453 |
Doc. 49.2 - Amicus Brief | 501 |
DRAFT Tribal Amicus Brief 6.11.25 (w signature blocks)[56] | 542 |
MD Amicus Brief 6.19.25[Draft] | 577 |
State Amicus Brief 3.10.26 | 593 |
TABLE OF CONTENTS | 594 |
Tribal Amicus Brief - Crypto.com (9th Cir.) | 636 |
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES | 639 |
IDENTITY AND INTERESTS OF AMICI | 644 |
INTRODUCTION | 646 |
ARGUMENT | 649 |
I. Congress Did Not Impliedly Repeal IGRA. | 649 |
A. IGRA’s Structure | 649 |
B. Congress Did Not Repeal IGRA When It Enacted the CEA’s Definition of a “Swap” in 2010. | 650 |
C. Crypto.com’s Theory Does Not Meet the Standard for Implied Repeals. | 654 |
1. Crypto.com’s sports-betting contracts are not “swaps.” | 655 |
2. Congress did not manifest clear intent to repeal IGRA or to make the CFTC a gaming regulator. | 658 |
3. The Indian Canons of Construction require this Court to resolve any ambiguity in favor of tribes. | 662 |
D. IGRA Regulates Online Gaming on Tribes’ Indian Lands-Including Crypto.com’s Sports-Betting Contracts. | 663 |
II. The Major Questions Doctrine Forecloses Crypto.com’s Theory. | 665 |
III. Crypto.com’s Preemption Argument Would Violate the Private Nondelegation Doctrine. | 670 |
CONCLUSION | 672 |
Tribal Amicus Brief - Kalshi v. Schuler (D. Ohio) | 679 |
STATEMENT OF INTEREST | 679 |
ARGUMENT | 680 |
I. IGRA Governs Kalshi’s Sports Betting Conduct on Indian Lands | 681 |
A. The CEA does not exclusively govern gaming-related sports-event contracts | 681 |
1. The CEA does not give CFTC exclusive jurisdiction over gaming-related sports-event contracts | 683 |
2. Kalshi’s sports-event contracts are not valid “swaps” | 684 |
3. The CFTC expressly prohibits Kalshi’s sports-event contracts | 685 |
4. The self-certification provisions of the CEA and CFTC regulations do not grant Kalshi authority to decide that its sports-event contracts are lawful swaps | 687 |
B. The CEA does not impliedly repeal IGRA | 688 |
1. IGRA protects tribes’ authority to regulate online gaming on Indian lands | 689 |
2. Kalshi cannot overcome the presumption against implied repeal | 690 |
C. Kalshi’s sports-event contracts constitute “Class III Gaming” under IGRA | 694 |
II. Ignoring the Applicability of IGRA Raises Serious Policy Concerns and Violates Federal Indian Policy | 696 |
CONCLUSION | 699 |
Tribal Amicus Brief - Kalshi v. Schuler (D. Ohio)[89] | 700 |
STATEMENT OF INTEREST | 700 |
ARGUMENT | 701 |
I. IGRA Governs Kalshi’s Sports Betting Conduct on Indian Lands | 702 |
A. The CEA does not exclusively govern gaming-related sports-event contracts | 702 |
1. The CEA does not give CFTC exclusive jurisdiction over gaming-related sports-event contracts | 704 |
2. Kalshi’s sports-event contracts are not valid “swaps” | 705 |
3. The CFTC expressly prohibits Kalshi’s sports-event contracts | 706 |
4. The self-certification provisions of the CEA and CFTC regulations do not grant Kalshi authority to decide that its sports-event contracts are lawful swaps | 708 |
B. The CEA does not impliedly repeal IGRA | 709 |
1. IGRA protects tribes’ authority to regulate online gaming on Indian lands | 710 |
2. Kalshi cannot overcome the presumption against implied repeal | 711 |
C. Kalshi’s sports-event contracts constitute “Class III Gaming” under IGRA | 715 |
II. Ignoring the Applicability of IGRA Raises Serious Policy Concerns and Violates Federal Indian Policy | 717 |
CONCLUSION | 720 |
Tribal Amicus Brief 12.3.25 | 721 |
INTRODUCTION AND INTERESTS OF AMICI CURIAE | 727 |
ARGUMENT | 730 |
I. IGRA Governs Kalshi’s Sports Betting Conduct on Indian Lands | 731 |
A. The CEA does not exclusively govern gaming-related sports-event contracts | 731 |
1. The CEA does not give CFTC exclusive jurisdiction over gaming-related sports-event contracts | 733 |
2. The CFTC expressly prohibits Kalshi’s sports-event contracts | 734 |
3. The self-certification provisions of the CEA and CFTC regulations are invalid as applied to Kalshi | 736 |
B. The CEA does not impliedly repeal IGRA or any other applicable federal law | 738 |
1. IGRA protects tribes’ authority to regulate online gaming on Indian lands | 738 |
2. Kalshi cannot overcome the presumption against implied repeal | 739 |
3. Congress did not nullify PASPA and preempt the state sports betting prohibitions on which it relied to effectuate federal policy when it amended the CEA in 2010 | 743 |
C. Kalshi’s sports-event contracts constitute “Class III Gaming” under IGRA | 744 |
II. Ignoring the Applicability of IGRA Raises Serious Policy Concerns and Violates Federal Indian Policy | 747 |
CONCLUSION | 749 |
G. 2. CFTC - Complaints | 752 |
1. Complaint - 8.19.25 | 752 |
1. Complaint - 8.19.25[1] | 778 |
A. Event Contracts | 782 |
B. Robinhood Makes Available Certain Kalshi Event Contracts | 783 |
C. The Commodity Exchange Act and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission | 784 |
D. The Cease-and-Desist Letters and Kalshi’s Preliminary Injunction | 789 |
E. The CEA Preempts Application of State Gaming Laws to Sports-Related Event Contract Trading on CFTC-Designated Exchanges. | 791 |
F. The CEA’s Preemption of State Gaming Laws as Applied to Sports-Related Event Contracts Includes Those Opened and Traded Through Robinhood’s Platform. | 798 |
G. Robinhood Has Suffered Irreparable Harm and Will Continue To Suffer Irreparable Harm Without Injunctive Relief. | 800 |
iii. Granting such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. | 804 |
1. Complaint - 9.15.25 | 806 |
1. Complaint | 834 |
Ho Chunk Complaint | 867 |
G. 3. CFTC - Decisions | 956 |
48. Memorandum Decision - Granting Kalshi PI | 956 |
I. Procedural History | 958 |
II. Legal Standards | 958 |
III. Facts | 959 |
A. Statutory Background | 960 |
1. The Commodity Exchange Act | 960 |
2. Tennessee Sports Gaming Act | 963 |
B. Kalshi’s and its sports event contracts | 964 |
C. Tennessee Sports Wagering Council and its Cease-and-Desist Letter | 966 |
IV. Discussion | 966 |
A. Jurisdiction and the Eleventh Amendment | 966 |
B. Likelihood of success on the merits | 968 |
1. Kalshi’s sports event contracts are “swaps” | 968 |
a) Events | 969 |
b) Potential financial, economic, or commercial consequence | 971 |
2. Preemption | 973 |
C. Irreparable harm | 976 |
D. Balance of interests | 978 |
E. Bond | 979 |
V. Conclusion | 980 |
New Jersey-DecisionKalshi-(Apr-2025) | 981 |
G. 4. CFTC Memos | 997 |
10-1. Memo P+A ISO Mtn for TRO - 8.19.25 | 997 |
G. 5 CFTC Orders | 1031 |
49. Order | 1031 |
105. Order Denying MJOP & PI and Partially Granting MTS - 10.14.25 | 1032 |
237. Order Dissolving PI - 11.24.25 | 1059 |
Nevada DCt-Order (11-24-25) | 1088 |
NevDistCt-Order-TRO(Apr-2025) | 1117 |
Ohio Order 3.9.26 | 1134 |
Order on PI Motion | 1155 |
G. 6. CFTC Motions | 1168 |
7. Mtn for TRO-PI - 8.19.25 | 1168 |
10. Mtn for TRO-PI - 8.19.25 | 1199 |
35. Blue Lake's Mtn for PI - 9.04.25 | 1202 |
40 - Motion for Leave to File Amicus Brief in Kalshi v. Orgel (M.D. Tenn.)-c | 1236 |
Doc. 41 - Motion for Leave | 1267 |
Mot Withdraw 8.13.25 | 1274 |
G. 7. CFTC Documents | 1277 |
6. Ntc of Related Case - 8.19.25 | 1277 |
16 -- Kalshi Opening Brief | 1280 |
27. Maryland Response Brief | 1377 |
42. Crypto MJOP & MTS - 8.04.25 | 1456 |
Common Interest and Confidentiality Agreement (FINAL)[5] | 1482 |
Doc 75 - Brief | 1487 |
Doc. 73 - Defendants' Reply Brief | 1507 |
Doc. 83 - Transcript of Oral Arguments | 1541 |
COA | 1541 |
VERT-00072_09-10-2025_AMENDED_with CoS | 1542 |
VERT-00072_09-10-2025_AMENDED | 1542 |
25-1922 | 1542 |
Word Index | 1577 |
All | 1577 |
08611 - antitrust | 1577 |
anyway - call | 1578 |
called - companies | 1579 |
company - dcm | 1580 |
dcm's - escribers.net | 1581 |
especially - fraud | 1582 |
friend - import | 1583 |
important - know | 1584 |
know - measurement | 1585 |
meet - ping | 1586 |
pittsburgh - quite | 1587 |
quote - risks | 1588 |
room - statement | 1589 |
statement - think | 1590 |
think - way | 1591 |
ways - york | 1592 |
Alphabetical | 1577 |
Numbers and Symbols | 1577 |
08611 - antitrust | 1577 |
A | 1577 |
08611 - antitrust | 1577 |
anyway - call | 1578 |
B | 1578 |
anyway - call | 1578 |
C | 1578 |
anyway - call | 1578 |
called - companies | 1579 |
company - dcm | 1580 |
D | 1580 |
company - dcm | 1580 |
dcm's - escribers.net | 1581 |
E | 1581 |
dcm's - escribers.net | 1581 |
especially - fraud | 1582 |
F | 1582 |
especially - fraud | 1582 |
friend - import | 1583 |
G | 1583 |
friend - import | 1583 |
H | 1583 |
friend - import | 1583 |
I | 1583 |
friend - import | 1583 |
important - know | 1584 |
J | 1584 |
important - know | 1584 |
K | 1584 |
important - know | 1584 |
L | 1585 |
know - measurement | 1585 |
M | 1585 |
know - measurement | 1585 |
meet - ping | 1586 |
N | 1586 |
meet - ping | 1586 |
O | 1586 |
meet - ping | 1586 |
P | 1586 |
meet - ping | 1586 |
pittsburgh - quite | 1587 |
Q | 1587 |
pittsburgh - quite | 1587 |
quote - risks | 1588 |
R | 1588 |
quote - risks | 1588 |
room - statement | 1589 |
S | 1589 |
room - statement | 1589 |
statement - think | 1590 |
T | 1590 |
statement - think | 1590 |
think - way | 1591 |
U | 1591 |
think - way | 1591 |
V | 1591 |
think - way | 1591 |
W | 1591 |
think - way | 1591 |
ways - york | 1592 |
X | 1592 |
ways - york | 1592 |
Y | 1592 |
ways - york | 1592 |
CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE | 1596 |
CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE | 1596 |
Kalshi v. Hendrick CA9 - State Defendants Response Brief - filed | 1597 |
Maryland AG-Response(May-2025) | 1707 |
Maryland-Kalshi reply (5.19.25) | 1743 |
MGC-Prediction-Markets-Letter-November-2025 | 1760 |
Nevada Dist-Ct-Hearing-trans (Apr-2025) | 1762 |
Nevada-Resort Assoc-Intervene (May2025) | 1852 |
NJ AG Brief (Apr-2025) | 1877 |
TABLE OF CONTENTS | 1878 |
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES | 1879 |
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT | 1887 |
COUNTERSTATEMENT OF FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY | 1889 |
A. New Jersey’s Historical Regulation of Gambling. | 1889 |
B. The Commodity Exchange Act. | 1892 |
C. Kalshi’s Business And This Case. | 1894 |
STANDARD OF REVIEW | 1897 |
ARGUMENT | 1898 |
I. Kalshi will not succeed on the merits because the CEA does not preempt the New Jersey Sports Wagering Act. | 1898 |
A. The presumption against preemption applies to the New Jersey Sports Wagering Act. | 1898 |
B. Congress did not field preempt state sports-wagering laws that regulate event contracts. | 1900 |
1. The CEA’s plain text shows that Congress did not displace state sports-wagering laws that regulate event contracts. | 1900 |
2. Nothing in the case law or legislative history of the CEA indicates that Congress meant to field preempt state sports-wagering laws regulating event contracts. | 1909 |
C. Regulation of these event contracts under New Jersey’s Sports Wagering Act is not an obstacle to the purposes of the CEA. | 1912 |
1. The New Jersey Sports Wagering Act furthers rather than impedes the CEA. | 1913 |
2. Kalshi does not identify any obstacle to the purposes and objectives of the CEA. | 1916 |
II. The equities confirm that Kalshi is not entitled to the relief it seeks. | 1920 |
A. Kalshi has not established irreparable harm. | 1920 |
B. The public interest weighs against injunctive relief. | 1924 |
CONCLUSION | 1926 |
H. Letters to Congress | 1928 |
Chairman-SenMoran-Ltr(June-2025) | 1928 |
Chairman-SenMoran-Ltr(Nov-2025) | 1931 |
Jeff Hurd-Ltr(Mar-2026) copy | 1934 |
Jeff Hurd-Ltr(Mar-2026) | 1938 |
Ltr-Senate Agriculture and Banking 12-2025 | 1942 |
NCSL to Congress_Address Unregulated Sports Betting via Prediction Markets_Jan2026 | 1945 |
I. Media | 1947 |
Articles-Insider Trading (2026) | 1947 |
IGA Stmnt-MLB-PMs(Mar-2026) | 1972 |
INSIDER TRADING-Article (2026) | 1974 |
J. Presentation Slides | 1982 |
2026 03 31 IGA Meeting FINAL | 1982 |
Power-Pt-CFTC (Apr-2025) | 1986 |
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs