27 States Back California Tribes Suing Kalshi Over Sports Contracts Under Indian Gaming Law
Three California tribes are pursuing a separate Ninth Circuit case against Kalshi's sports contracts under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act — a 1988 federal law governing tribal gaming rights that is independent of the CEA preemption arguments in the Nevada, NJ, and Connecticut cases. The Ninth Circuit refused consolidation with the Nevada case. A panel appeared skeptical of Kalshi in July. 27 states plus DC filed amicus supporting the tribes.
Three federally recognised California tribes — Blue Lake Rancheria, Chicken Ranch Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians, and Picayune Rancheria of the Chukchansi Indians — are pursuing a separate Ninth Circuit challenge to Kalshi's sports event contracts under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988 (IGRA), a federal law entirely distinct from the Commodity Exchange Act preemption arguments at issue in the Nevada, New Jersey, Connecticut, and Michigan cases. The Ninth Circuit refused to consolidate the tribal case with the Nevada case decided 3-0 on August 28. The tribal case proceeds before a separate panel on separate legal questions.
For UK readers, the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act is analogous in structure to the UK Gambling Act's licensing framework but with a sovereignty dimension. The 1988 legislation granted federally recognised tribes exclusive rights to certain gaming activities within their territories in exchange for entering state-tribal compacts — agreements negotiated with state governments. The tribes in the California case argue that Kalshi's sports outcome contracts fall within the scope of gaming activity protected by their compacts, and that Kalshi's CFTC-designated contract market licence does not override the exclusive tribal gaming rights Congress granted under a separate federal statute. Two federal licences can conflict; IGRA was enacted to protect tribal economic interests specifically. Whether the later-enacted CFTC licence displaces tribal exclusivity is a federal pre-emption question within federal law — not a question of whether federal law overrides state gambling statutes.
The amicus filing from 27 states and the District of Columbia is significant. US amicus coalitions of this size in commercial litigation are rare; they indicate that states across the country, including many without active prediction market enforcement actions, view the tribal gaming exclusivity question as implicating their own regulatory authority. Tribal gaming compacts exist across most US states. A Ninth Circuit ruling that IGRA exclusivity covers Kalshi's sports contracts would set precedent applicable wherever tribes have compacts — which in practice means most of the country. The 27-state coalition suggests other AGs see the tribal case as a potential route to a national result through a different legal mechanism than the state-by-state CEA cases.
The IGRA theory is potentially more resilient to a pro-Kalshi SCOTUS ruling on the CEA question than the state enforcement cases. If the Supreme Court eventually rules that sports event contracts are swaps within CFTC exclusive jurisdiction, the CEA-based state enforcement actions in Nevada, New Jersey, Connecticut, and elsewhere would likely be struck down. But the IGRA exclusivity question — whether a CFTC-licensed product can override a competing federal statute granting tribes exclusive gaming rights — survives that SCOTUS ruling, because it concerns the interaction of two federal statutes rather than federal preemption of state law. The tribal case could therefore deliver an injunction against Kalshi's sports contracts in California and potentially other states regardless of how the CEA/swap circuit split resolves. That possibility alone explains why 27 states have filed amicus briefs in a case nominally about California tribal gaming rights.
Operators mentioned in this article
Recent updates
CFTC Chair Says Agency Is Watching Prediction Markets for Manipulation Ahead of Midterms
CFTC Chairman Michael Selig said on October 23 that the agency is closely monitoring prediction markets for manipulation ahead of the November 3 midterms, and that it is separately scrutinising oil market trading tied to President Trump's announcements about the war in Iran. Combined midterm open interest on Kalshi and Polymarket stood at $250 million as of October 18, with Kalshi holding 84%. Selig acknowledged the agency often catches political figures trading 'oftentimes after the fact.' The remarks highlight the CFTC's dual role as both the platforms' federal protector and their manipulation watchdog.
Pentagon Bars Personnel From Trading on Military Information After $400K Prediction Market Scandal
US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth issued an October 20 memo barring Department of Defense personnel from making financial transactions using non-public information, explicitly naming Polymarket and Kalshi. The directive follows the prosecution of a Special Forces soldier accused of making more than $400,000 on Polymarket by betting on a mission to capture Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro. Hegseth's rationale is a national-security concern: a bet on a military outcome creates a market signal adversaries can read. 'Our enemies watch movements in these markets,' the memo states.
Crypto.com and Novig Sue Missouri as Market Leaders Hold Back — Eighth Circuit Now in Play via Iowa
Crypto.com and Novig filed federal lawsuits on October 16 challenging Missouri's cease-and-desist orders, arguing their sports event contracts fall under exclusive CFTC jurisdiction. The suits came as Missouri's 30-day compliance window closed. Notably, the market leaders — Kalshi, Polymarket, Robinhood, and Underdog — have not sued; Missouri said it is in 'ongoing discussions' with Kalshi. The outcome is tied to the Eighth Circuit, now weighing the same question in Kalshi's Iowa appeal — the fourth federal circuit to take up the prediction market question.