Seminole Tribe Sues DraftKings as 145 Tribal Governments Urge SCOTUS to Act — But Tribes Are Split
The Seminole Tribe of Florida sued DraftKings on October 8 in Broward County court, alleging that DraftKings' Pick6 and sports event contracts operate as unlicensed sportsbooks that violate the Tribe's exclusive sports betting rights under its 2021 Florida gaming compact. The same week, a coalition of roughly 130 federally recognized tribes and 15 tribal organizations filed a Supreme Court amicus brief urging the Court to hear the Kalshi case, arguing the contracts are sports bets and that platforms have operated on Indian lands without tribal authorization under IGRA. But the tribal community is split: several California tribes and an Oklahoma tribe have instead partnered with Kalshi to build apps and online casinos on its platform.
The Seminole Tribe of Florida filed a 72-page lawsuit against DraftKings on October 8, 2026 in Broward County Circuit Court, naming DraftKings, its CEO Jason Robins, and GUS III LLC, which operates as DraftKings Predictions. The Tribe alleges that DraftKings' Pick6 product and its sports event contracts function as unlicensed sportsbooks that replicate traditional sports wagering while circumventing the Tribe's 2021 Florida gaming compact, which grants the Seminoles exclusive rights to offer regulated sports betting in the state. The Tribe is seeking an injunction, disgorgement of profits, and legal costs. DraftKings responded that it respects the Seminole Tribe's sovereignty but remains confident in its legal position, arguing that its products comply with federal commodity and fantasy sports rules and that it is regulated solely at the federal level by the CFTC. Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, who negotiated the 2021 compact, signaled support for the Tribe's action.
The choice of defendant is itself notable. The Seminole Tribe sued DraftKings but not Kalshi, Polymarket, Underdog, PrizePicks, or Crypto.com, all of which offer comparable sports event contracts. Gaming attorney Daniel Wallach suggested the Tribe may have avoided suing the platform with the strongest White House backing — a reference to the political connections between Kalshi, Polymarket, and the current administration documented in recent reporting. Targeting DraftKings, a publicly traded sports betting company whose prediction market product is a newer and smaller line, is a lower-risk way for the Tribe to test the legal theory than directly confronting the market leaders and their political support. Wallach expected DraftKings to attempt to remove the case to federal court, the same tactic Kalshi has used when sued in state court, though the Tribe's request for injunctive relief under the state compact may be structured to resist removal.
The Seminole suit coincided with a major tribal filing at the Supreme Court. A coalition of roughly 130 federally recognized tribes and 15 tribal organizations filed an amicus brief on October 8 supporting New Jersey's petition in Flaherty v. KalshiEX, urging the Court to take the case. The coalition's argument has two parts. First, that Kalshi's sports event contracts are sports bets regardless of the label, and that Congress did not, by adding the single word 'swaps' to the Commodity Exchange Act, intend to displace the entire existing framework of gaming law. Second, that Kalshi has offered sports event contracts on Indian lands without tribal authorization, raising distinct questions under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act — the federal statute, rooted in the Supreme Court's 1987 Cabazon decision, that governs gaming on tribal lands. The tribal nations frame the prediction market platforms as an existential threat to the exclusive gaming rights that fund tribal governments and that were guaranteed through decades of litigation and federal law.
The tribal community is not unified, however. While the large coalition opposes the platforms at the Supreme Court, several tribes have moved in the opposite direction commercially. Three California tribes announced they are partnering with Kalshi to build their own apps and online casinos on the platform, and a small Oklahoma tribe has struck a deal with Kalshi as well — drawing criticism from the more than 140 tribes in the opposing coalition. The split mirrors the divide among sports leagues, where the NFL opposes the platforms in court while MLB, the NHL, and MLS have signed commercial partnerships. In both cases, the division reflects a strategic choice: fight the platforms to defend an existing exclusive franchise, or partner with them to capture a share of a growing market that may be impossible to stop. For tribes, the stakes are especially high because tribal gaming exclusivity is not merely a commercial arrangement but a legal framework tied to sovereignty and to the funding of tribal government services. The tribes partnering with Kalshi are betting that participation is better than resistance; the 145 opposing tribes are betting that the exclusivity they fought for is worth defending at the Supreme Court. The outcome of Flaherty v. KalshiEX will determine which bet pays off.
Operators mentioned in this article
Recent updates
Kalshi's Parlays Drive Back-to-Back $5B Days — and Hand Critics Their Strongest Argument
Kalshi traded a record $5.33 billion on November 7 and $5.36 billion on November 8, with multi-leg parlay-style 'combos' making up roughly 75% of both days' volume. Its 30-day volume topped $100 billion. But the parlay dominance cuts against the platform's legal defense: parlays are a quintessential sportsbook product, and the American Gaming Association has told the Second Circuit that parlays make up about two-thirds of Kalshi's volume and should be treated as sports bets. The implied house edge on 10-plus-leg combos is around 25%, undercutting the argument that these are neutral financial instruments rather than gambling.
Cruz Bill Would Require State or Tribal Approval for Sports Contracts — a Bipartisan Legislative Threat Emerges
Senator Ted Cruz, who chairs the Senate Commerce Committee, is preparing a bill that would bar federally regulated prediction markets from offering gambling-tied event contracts, including sports, unless a state or tribal government authorizes them. It would not ban the contracts nationwide but would require platforms to obtain approval jurisdiction by jurisdiction, resembling state-by-state sportsbook regulation. The proposal arrives as Democrats take control of both chambers after the midterms, creating a potential bipartisan reckoning: a Republican committee chair and a newly skeptical Democratic majority both eyeing restrictions on a sector that had relied on federal protection.
CFTC Tells Platforms to Stop Geofencing States — Directly Colliding With State Court Orders
The CFTC issued an interpretation on November 5 of its 'impartial access' core principle, telling regulated exchanges including Kalshi and Polymarket to drop state-by-state geographic blocks within 30 days or explain why they cannot. The demand collides head-on with existing state court orders that require the platforms to geofence: Washington ordered Kalshi to geofence in August, and Michigan ordered it to use licensed geolocation to block the state in September, with a $500,000 daily fine for violations. Chairman Michael Selig framed the interpretation as a uniformity requirement. The platforms are now caught between a federal demand to unblock states and state court orders to block them.