Colorado’s Ute tribes are taking their claim that the state is denying them the right to offer statewide mobile sports betting to a federal appellate court. The tribes — the Southern Ute and Ute Mountain Ute — initially sued the state in July 2024 arguing that like their commercial counterparts, they should be able to offer online sports betting throughout Colorado, but a district court judge in late October dismissed the case.
U.S. District Court Judge Gordon Gallagher wrote Oct. 23 that he believes a bet is placed where the bettor is physically located and that “the distinction is crucial in this action and fatal to the tribes’ case.”
The tribes promised an appeal, and the case was moved to the Ninth Circuit Dec. 8, though no briefs have been filed. The tribes must file their initial appeal brief by Feb. 19, 2026.
Colorado voters legalized digital sports betting via ballot initiative in November 2019, and the first bets were taken at the height of COVID-19 shutdowns on May 1, 2020. The Southern Ute tribe was among those with a platform, but the state ultimately directed the tribe to shutter its site, arguing that the tribe was not regulated by the state and not paying taxes on sports bets taken off tribal lands.
The Southern Ute partnered with US Bookmaking in 2020 for its Sky Ute digital sportsbook. Because the server was on tribal land, the digital sportsbook was not subject to the 10% tax levied on other operators. The platform was taken down in July 2023.
Tribes: State has breached compact
In their case, the Ute tribes argue that because the state allows commercial operators to offer digital sports betting, they should be able to, as well. The argument finds its roots in the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA). Both tribes are operating under 1995 compacts, which do not specifically allow for online sports betting. The tribes contend that the state has breached the compacts. That compact allows the tribes to have “those gaming activities and bet amounts that are identical” to ones authorized in the state. In essence, whatever commercial operators are allowed to offer, the tribes can too.
While IGRA allows for that situation, in practice, tribal compacts must be opened to insert the proper language, and the state must be amenable to the setup. In this case, the state of Colorado appears open to the idea of bringing tribal platforms under state regulation and taxation. But the tribes don’t want that — rather they want the “Seminole Model,” in which the tribes can offer statewide mobile sports betting under tribal regulation, meaning that state wouldn’t have a say or collect taxes.
The Florida Seminoles are the only tribe with such an agreement, and their compact contains the language that “bets are considered placed where received.” The Ute compacts do not include that language. In addition, the Seminoles have a monopoly. They are the only operator — tribal, commercial, or otherwise — in Florida. The compact does allow for other operators, but they would be required to partner with the Seminoles and to put their tech stacks on Hard Rock Bet servers. A monopoly isn’t possible in Colorado, as there are more than a dozen commercial digital platforms operating with state licenses. And in states with both commercial and tribal platforms, no tribe is currently authorized to offer statewide betting without being under the state’s purview.
In states like Arizona, Connecticut, and Michigan, tribes gave up exclusivity and are under state regulation for all bets made off tribal land. Bets placed on reservations aren’t taxed, but those placed on digital platforms off reservation — usually run by a management services partner — are.
As the Colorado case progresses, Indian Country will be watching. A win for the Utes could help to inform what sports betting will look in states with big tribal presences, including Oklahoma and Minnesota.
California tribes granted extension
In the case in which three Northern California tribes sued Kalshi to keep it from operating on their lands, lawyers representing Blue Lake Rancheria, Chicken Ranch Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians, and Picayune Rancheria of Chukchansi Indians Dec. 23 were granted an extension to file their opening brief after appealing the case to the Ninth Circuit. The brief is now due Jan. 9, 2026, with Kalshi’s reply due Feb. 6.
A federal district court judge in November denied the tribes’ request for an injunction to keep the company from operating on their reservations. At that time, Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley wrote, “The Court does not take lightly Plaintiffs’ concerns about the effects Kalshi’s activities might have on tribal sovereignty and the Tribes’ finances. Indeed, by self-certifying the legality of its event contracts in way that insulates its activities from judicial review, Kalshi may have found a way around prohibitions on interstate gambling that were created with the Tribes’ best interest in mind.
“But, on the record currently before the Court, and in light of the Commodity Exchange Act’s self-certification process, Plaintiffs have not met their burden of showing a likelihood of success.”
Ho-Chunks say Kalshi falsely advertising
Wisconsin’s Ho-Chunk Nation sued Kalshi in August to keep the company from offering prediction markets on its land, and a brief by Kalshi to have the case dismissed is pending. In that brief, Kalshi argued that because it is not part of the compact between the state and the tribe, the tribe has no grounds to sue.
But Dec. 19, the tribe responded, invoking the RICO Act and arguing that Kalshi is falsely advertising “its illegal conduct as sports betting, legal in all 50 states.” In addition, the tribe argues it can sue any entity that offers Class III gaming on its lands in violation of its compact, that the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act does not apply because “Kalshi seeks to use it to alter or limit State law and the Gaming Compact,” and that Kalshi is incorrectly applying the Commodities Exchange Act (CEA).
A reply from Kalshi is due Jan. 12, 2026. Also pending is the Ho-Chunk’s Dec. 17 motion for a preliminary injunction. Kalshi must reply by Jan. 7, and a status conference is set for Jan. 8.
