Spokane County Bar Assn. Indian Law Section Bar Prep Scholarship 2027

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here:

2026-08-27 SCBA ILS scholarship notice, form.pdfDownload

The CFTC’s Prediction Market Rule Has United an Unlikely Coalition Against It

Wenona Singel

Tribes aren’t alone in warning that the Commodity Futures Trading Commission is exceeding its authority with its proposed rule. Criticism of the rule is also raised in comments submitted by former Senator Chris Dodd, co-author of Dodd-Frank, the legislation that amended the Commodities Exchange Act provisions at the heart of CFTC’s proposed rule; Timothy Massad, a former CFTC chair; 44 state attorneys general; and leading gaming and derivatives interests.

This is the third and final post in a series (first post; second post) on the CFTC’s proposed rule governing prediction market “event contracts.”

Former Sen. Chris Dodd, co-author of Dodd-Frank, says Congress did not authorize this

Former Senator Christopher Dodd submitted a comment stating:

The proposed regulatory amendments contradict the language and intent of the Dodd-Frank Act and promote public policies opposing what Congress clearly intended.


These amendments could well endanger consumers and promote speculation. These proposed amendments undermine the traditional police powers of states and also functionally amend the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA), which could diminish tribal sovereignty.

Chris Dodd CFTC commentDownload

A former CFTC chair says the agency has “lost its way”

Former CFTC Chair Timothy Massad opened his comment with an unusually direct statement:

“The Commodity Futures Trading Commission has lost its way . . . . Although I have not submitted comments on any rule proposal since leaving the agency, I feel it is important to do so here because the agency has lost sight of its mission and the limits of its own authority.”

Timothy Massad CFTC commentDownload

Forty-four state attorneys general raise objections

A bipartisan coalition of 44 state attorneys general, led by Ohio Attorney General Andy Wilson, likewise argues:

“The CFTC in the Proposed Rule goes well beyond its statutory authority. . . . it violates both the major-questions doctrine and the federalism canon . . . . [and] clashes with the CEA’s plain text, structure, and purpose.”

44 State AGs comment on CFTC proposed ruleDownload

Comments from the American Gaming Association and CME Group

The American Gaming Association, whose members include commercial and Tribal gaming operators, states in its comments:

The proposed rule concedes that sports event contracts involve gaming, yet creates a permissive framework designed to allow them. That approach conflicts with congressional intent, 15 years of regulatory precedent, state and federal law, and the CFTC’s own regulations. It would also displace state and tribal authority while exposing consumers and sports competitions to wagering activity without comparable licensing, geolocation, responsible gaming, integrity monitoring, or enforcement safeguards.


The CFTC is a financial markets regulator, not a national gaming commission. It lacks both the expertise and resources to replace the more than 8,400 state and tribal regulators who oversee legal gaming today. The Commission should withdraw the proposed revisions to Rule 40.11, enforce the existing prohibition on gaming event contracts, respect tribal sovereignty and states’ rights, and put an end to the unlawful nationwide expansion of sports wagering through prediction markets.

CME Group, one of the world’s largest derivatives market operators, also submitted comments, stating that “the Commission’s authority on this score is ambiguous at best, [and] deferring to Congress would be advisable.”

Each of these comments challenge the CFTC’s authority to create a nationwide market for products that function as sports betting while bypassing the federal, Tribal, and state laws that otherwise govern gaming.

The Oklahoma Indian Gaming Association’s Wins Award for Longest Comment

A final note: OIGA’s comment was the most detailed submission to the CFTC, totaling 50 pages and including 291 footnotes.

California Federal Court Enjoins Arbitration against Guidiville, Orders Discovery on Immunity Claim against Counterclaim

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the new materials in Guidiville Rancheria of California v. Bluerock Real Estate Holdings LLC (N.D. Cal.):

12 Motion for Preliminary Injunction.pdfDownload
15 Opposition.pdfDownload
20 Reply.pdfDownload
23 DCT Order on Motion for PI.pdfDownload
24 Answer + Counterclaim.pdfDownload
33 Motion to Dismiss Counterclaim.pdfDownload
35 Opposition.pdfDownload
43 Reply.pdfDownload
48 Magistrate Order.pdfDownload

Prior post here.

Oklahoma Federal Court Dismisses Choctaw Inmates’ Claims against State Actors

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion in Bayles v. Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma (E.D. Okla.):

61 DCT Order.pdfDownload

Prior post addressing claims against the tribe is here.

Alaska SCT Holds Tanana Chiefs Conference is Immune from Suit by Own Membership

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion in Dot Lake Village vs. Dena Nena Henash d/b/a Tanana Chiefs Conference:

Opinion.pdfDownload

Briefs:

Opening Brief.pdfDownload
Answer Brief.pdfDownload
Reply.pdfDownload

Tenth Circuit Reverses Dismissal of Section 1983 Claim by Tribal Citizen against Oklahoma Cops

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion in Walden v. City of Duncan.

Briefs:

Appellant Brief.pdfDownload
Appellee Brief.pdfDownload
Reply.pdfDownload

Lower court materials here.

What Tribal Comments Are Telling the CFTC About Prediction Markets

Wenona Singel

This is a follow-up to my earlier post on prediction markets and Indian gaming. A subsequent post on key comments submitted by non-Tribal persons and organizations is available here.

Below is a summary that provides a snapshot of the concerns raised by Tribes in their comments submitted in response to the CFTC’s proposed rule.

Taken together, the comments consistently emphasize that the CFTC is considering a federal workaround that could allow companies to offer nationwide sports betting while bypassing the legal framework Congress created for gaming in Indian country.

Recurring concerns raised in Tribal comments include:

  • IGRA already governs gaming on Indian lands. The CEA should not be interpreted to override, impliedly repeal, or create a workaround around the federal Indian gaming framework Congress established in IGRA.
  • The CFTC failed to conduct meaningful government-to-government Tribal consultation. Notice-and-comment rulemaking is not a substitute for consultation when a federal action substantially affects Tribal sovereignty, gaming regulation, and Tribal governmental economies.
  • Sports event contracts are gaming regardless of what they are called. Many commenters argue that the legal analysis should turn on the transaction’s economic function, which is a wager for value on an uncertain sporting outcome and not the label “event contract.”
  • The proposed definition of when an event contract “involves” gaming is too narrow. Tribal commenters reject an interpretation limited to what determines settlement of the contract and argue that Congress’s language also reaches contracts that functionally relate to or facilitate wagering on gaming activity.
  • The rule threatens Tribal sovereignty and regulatory jurisdiction. Nationwide mobile sports event wagering could reach Indian lands without Tribal authorization and bypass Tribal gaming regulators.
  • Prediction markets could undermine Tribal-State compacts. Commenters warn that federally regulated sports event contracts could circumvent bargained-for gaming exclusivity and revenue sharing provisions.
  • The CFTC should not become a national sports betting regulator. Tribal commenters argue that the CEA regulates derivatives markets, not ordinary sports wagering, and point to the CFTC’s own prior statements that it is not a gaming regulator.
  • The proposal creates regulatory arbitrage. Functionally equivalent sports wagering could receive substantially lighter federal regulation when offered through a CFTC-regulated exchange, bypassing Tribal and state licensing, taxation, responsible-gaming, and consumer-protection requirements.
  • The CFTC should prohibit gaming contracts before they reach the market rather than rely on case-by-case review. Commenters object to allowing exchanges to self-certify contracts that may begin trading before the Commission determines whether they are permissible.
  • Tribal governmental revenues are at stake. Competition from prediction markets could reduce gaming revenues used by Tribal governments for health care, education, housing, public safety, and other governmental services.
  • Some commenters question whether sports wagers belong within the CEA at all. They argue that sports event wagers lack the hedging or risk management function associated with derivatives and may fail threshold statutory requirements for swaps.
  • The proposal raises federal trust responsibility and Indian law canon issues. Where federal statutes are ambiguous, commenters argue that the CEA should not be interpreted to silently displace Tribal sovereign, regulatory, or negotiated compact rights.
  • The rule may be vulnerable under the Administrative Procedure Act. Several comments preserve arguments that the CFTC is reversing prior understandings without adequately addressing congressional intent, Indian gaming law, Tribal sovereignty, and the regulatory consequences of its new approach.
  • Many Tribal commenters want the proposal withdrawn, not merely improved. The dominant requested remedy is for the CFTC to withdraw the proposed rule or preserve a categorical prohibition on gaming event contracts.

Tribal Submissions

CFTC List of Commenting Tribes with URL links for TTDownload