internet gaming

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.

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

Wisconsin Federal Court Signals Ho-Chunk Should Prevail over Kalshi & Robinhood but Declines to Grant Injunction

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in Ho-Chunk Nation v. Kalshi Inc. (W.D. Wis.):

1 ComplaintDownload
29 Kalshi Motion to DismissDownload
32 Robinhood Motion to DismissDownload
38 Ho-Chunk Motion for Preliminary InjunctionDownload
45 HCN Response to Kalshi & Robinhood MTDDownload
60 Kalshi ReplyDownload
61 RH ReplyDownload
63 Kashi Opposition to HCN MotionDownload
69 RH Opposition to HCN MotionDownload
79 HCN ReplyDownload
97 DCT OrderDownload

Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment in Maine Internet Gaming Case

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the new materials in Oxford Casino Hotel v. Champion (D. Me.):

35 Oxford Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings.pdfDownload
37 State Motion for Summary J.pdfDownload
38 Wabanaki Tribes Motion for Summary J.pdfDownload

Prior post here and here.

Wabanaki Nations Intervene to Defend Maine’s Internet Gaming Law

Matthew Campbell

On April 1, 2026, the four Wabanaki Nations — the Houlton Band of Maliseet Indians, the Mi’kmaq Nation, the Passamaquoddy Tribe, and the Penobscot Nation — represented by the Native American Rights Fund and co-counsel filed an unopposed motion to intervene in Oxford Casino Hotel, et al. v. Champion in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maine. On April 2, 2026, the district court granted the Nations’ motion. The Nations’ intervention ensures their voices are represented in a lawsuit challenging Maine’s new internet gaming law, An Act to Create Economic Opportunity for the Wabanaki Nations Through Internet Gaming, a statute that is important to unique Tribal economic and sovereign interests.

Previous post on this matter is here.

The law, enacted earlier this year, establishes a regulatory framework allowing the Wabanaki Nations to seek licenses to operate internet gaming in Maine. The statute is designed to support Tribal self-determination and create economic opportunities that strengthen the Wabanaki governments and their ability to provide for their communities. The Nations are the direct beneficiaries of the law and have significant sovereign, economic, and constitutional interests at stake in the litigation.

The lawsuit, brought by Oxford Casino Hotel and others, seeks to invalidate the law on constitutional grounds. By granting the Wabanaki Nations’ motion to intervene, the court has allowed the Nations  to participate as party defendants to defend the law and protect their unique sovereign right as governments to pursue economic development in order to fund essential government programs, services and infrastructure.

Leaders of the Wabanaki Nations emphasized the importance of intervening to safeguard economic sovereignty and shared prosperity across Maine.

Chief Francis, Penobscot Nation: “Our intervention in Oxford v. Champion is about the future — for our people and for all of rural Maine. This law gives the Penobscot Nation a fair chance to build jobs, fund essential services, and partner across communities to heal long-standing economic disparities, while recognizing our unique politic status as a Tribal Nation. We look forward to the opportunity to defend this law and our right to economic self-determination.”

Chief Sabattis, Houlton Band of Maliseet: “This law is crucial to advancing the Houlton Band’s efforts to develop independent, long-term revenue sources that are not dependent on federal funding and will enable us to support and expand governmental services for Maliseet families and other community members. It is a result of collaboration between the Wabanaki Nations and state government under our unique jurisdictional relationship to create opportunities that will enable the Nations to share in the economic benefits of gaming.”

Chief McCormack, Mi’kmaq Nation: “Rural Maine and our Nations are interconnected. When Tribal economies grow, local businesses, workers, and towns grow too. The Mi’kmaq Nation is proud to stand in court with the other Wabanaki Nations to defend a law that makes that shared prosperity possible.”

Chief Bassett, Passamaquoddy Tribe (Pleasant Point): “The Wabanaki Nations face steeper barriers to prosperity than other Tribes around the country, and we have been historically blocked out of Maine’s casino gaming industry as our peers across Indian country rebuilt their economies and the economies around them using those same economic tools we were deprived of. Defending this law is defending our right to pursue self-determination. We are fighting for a brighter economic future for our future generations.”

Chief Nicholas, Passamaquoddy Tribe (Indian Township): “The Passamaquoddy Tribe has been steadfast in its support of economic sovereignty as its number one priority the past two years in the Maine legislature. We are ready to stand in court to defend a law we were proud to fight for over the past years in the state house. Maine’s new internet gaming law is intended to promote a better economic future for Wabanaki communities and for rural Maine. By protecting this law, we protect our future.”

Native American Rights Fund Staff Attorney Lenny Powell: “The Native American Rights Fund is proud to jointly represent the Wabanaki Nations in efforts to defend ‘An Act to Create Economic Opportunity for the Wabanaki Nations Through Internet Gaming.’ This attack represents an unfortunate effort to undermine Tribal-state partnerships. It seeks to undermine the legal basis for constructive government-to-government policy collaboration, despite decades of data showing that Tribal and non-Tribal communities alike are stronger when Tribal nations are empowered in their pursuit of self-determination.”

Casinos Sue Maine over Tribal Gaming Law

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the complaint in Oxford Casino Hotel v. Champion (D. Me.):

1 Complaint

Tribal Amicus Brief in Third Circuit Appeal re: Company Using Event Contracts (Derivatives) to Engage in Sports Gambling

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the brief in Kalshiex LLC v. Flaherty:

Filed Tribal Amicus Brief in Kalshi v Flaherty Appeal.pdfDownload

Lower court opinion:

DCT Opinion.pdfDownload

Ninth Circuit Briefs in Chicken Ranch Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians of California v. State of California

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here:

State Opening Brief

Counties Amicus Brief

Union Amicus Brief

Answer Brief

Tribal Amicus Brief

 

Lower court materials here.

Ninth Circuit Rules against Iipay Online Bingo

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion in State of California v. Iipay Nation Of Santa Ysabel:

iipay opinion

Briefs here.

Ninth Circuit Briefs in State of California v. Iipay Nation of Santa Ysabel

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here:

Opening Brief

Answer Brief

Reply Brief

Case materials here.

Oral argument video here.

New Student Scholarship on Tribal Internet Gaming

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

The Jurimetrics Journal at ASU Law has published “A New Formula for Tribal Internet Gaming” by Racheal White Hawk. [pdf]

The abstract:

Tribal gaming is an industry that generates more than $27 billion a year. It comprises forty percent of all gaming in the United States, and has provided more than 628,000 jobs for Native and local communities. While tribal brick-and-mortar casinos contribute numerous economic, cultural, and social benefits to Native communities, Internet gaming profits are a potential boon. Internet gaming is well positioned for rapid growth because tens of millions of Americans use computers, cell phones, and tablets for shopping, games, and entertainment. Furthermore, with the advent of increasingly accurate geolocation technology, filtering, and blocking systems, the age and location of gamblers can be monitored, thus facilitating legal Internet gaming within state borders. Moreover, the potential for tax and licensing revenue from Internet gaming is immense, and states may enter into revenue-sharing agreements with tribes while offering exclusivity for tribal operators. For instance, in California, tribes contributed $467 million to state revenue in 2012 from brick and mortar casinos. States such as Delaware and New Jersey have legalized intrastate Internet gaming to reap tax revenue. California, however, has not yet legalized intrastate Internet gaming. Rather than wait for states to legalize intrastate Internet gaming, some tribes are launching their own online poker and bingo rooms to accept bets from players not located on Indian lands, asserting that doing so is legal under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA). However, some states disagree that it is legal under IGRA. To prevent impending expensive and time-consuming litigation and to support tribal economic development, Congress should reform the current regulatory patchwork of federal Internet gaming legislation by legalizing interstate Internet gaming, allowing states to opt out of the federal interstate Internet gaming scheme, and adding a new category specifically for Internet gaming to IGRA.