Wisconsin judge allows Ho-Chunk IGRA claims against Kalshi

A federal judge in Wisconsin allowed the Ho-Chunk Nation to pursue Indian Gaming Regulatory Act claims against Kalshi, finding the tribe plausibly alleged that Kalshi’s sports event contracts amount to unauthorized Class III gaming on tribal land. U.S. District Judge William Conley rejected several of Kalshi’s defenses but denied the tribe’s request for a preliminary injunction.

The Ho-Chunk’s complaint says Kalshi’s online contracts are offered and accessible to people on tribal land in Wisconsin, violating IGRA, tribal gaming rules and the tribe’s compact with the state. Kalshi argued tribes lack a statutory right to sue third-party operators under IGRA and that its operations are not “located on Indian lands” because the company is based in New York and runs servers elsewhere.

Conley concluded the tribe may bring such suits and cited IGRA’s legislative history that Congress intended to give “United States district courts jurisdiction over actions by … a tribe or state to enjoin illegal gaming on Indian lands.” The court relied on prior rulings that treat online gambling activity as occurring where the bettor is physically located rather than where servers are hosted.

Kalshi argued the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act shields its contracts from tribal regulation. Conley rejected that argument, writing, “Just because Kalshi’s conduct is not prohibited by the UIGEA does not make its offering of sports betting contracts legal anywhere, much less on Indian lands where it is expressly prohibited.” He described the UIGEA as a “non-substantive, payment-processing law” that does not legalize gambling or override IGRA and noted Congress said UIGEA should not alter IGRA’s application.

Kalshi also argued the Commodity Exchange Act and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission’s authority over designated contract markets preempt tribal regulation. Conley did not decide whether Kalshi’s contracts fall fully within CFTC jurisdiction but found the defendants had not shown the CEA clearly preempts or repeals IGRA.

The court denied the Ho-Chunk’s request for a preliminary injunction, finding the tribe had not shown immediate irreparable harm. The complaint did not include evidence that Kalshi’s operations had reduced casino visitation, revenue or customer spending. Conley acknowledged possible interference with tribal sovereignty but said changing the status quo was not appropriate.

Conley dismissed the tribe’s Lanham Act false-advertising claim, noting the Lanham Act requires a statement to be literally false and the complaint did not point to clear controlling authority on the issue. The judge also dismissed RICO allegations against Kalshi and brokerage Robinhood, finding the complaint did not plausibly allege criminal intent or fraud.

The Wisconsin ruling contrasts with a November 2025 federal decision in California that concluded the UIGEA, not IGRA, governs the challenged internet gambling and denied a preliminary injunction. The California case is on appeal. The differing rulings have created a split among federal courts that may lead to further appeals.

The Ho-Chunk may proceed with its IGRA claims in Wisconsin federal court while related cases involving Kalshi continue in other jurisdictions.