The Indian Gaming Association has intensified its opposition to the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act, arguing that revised language still lacks protections for Tribal gaming authority and the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. The dispute centers on prediction markets and whether federally regulated event-contract platforms could offer products tied to sports or casino-style gaming without following existing Tribal and state gaming frameworks.
In a September 11 statement, the Indian Gaming Association said changes proposed for the latest version of the CLARITY Act failed to address its central concerns. Senator Cynthia Lummis released updated legislative language after concerns emerged from the gaming industry and other groups. The revisions included changes related to decentralized finance, but the Association said those adjustments did not resolve its concerns about the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and the relationship between federal commodities law and existing gaming regulation.
The CLARITY Act forms part of a broader effort to establish federal rules for digital assets and clarify how the Securities and Exchange Commission and CFTC divide regulatory responsibilities. Prediction markets have become part of that debate because platforms such as Kalshi operate under federal commodities regulation. The Indian Gaming Association argues that sports event contracts offered through that framework can conflict with Tribal and state gaming laws.
Association Seeks Explicit Gaming Protections
The Association wants Congress to state expressly that federal commodities law does not preempt Tribal gaming laws, state gaming laws or IGRA. It also wants designated contract markets barred from listing contracts involving sports betting or casino games. The group says the revised legislation leaves those issues unresolved.
Indian Gaming Association Chairman David Z. Bean said:
“We want to make it absolutely clear that Indian Country is opposed to this version of the CLARITY Act,” Chairman Bean said. “While we appreciate that Senator Lummis has acknowledged the legitimate concerns raised by Tribal Nations, the proposed changes do not address the fundamental concerns of Indian Country.”
The Association has also criticized the proposed scope of CFTC authority. It characterizes the legislation as the largest expansion of the regulator’s authority since the Dodd-Frank Act of 2010 and argues that existing prediction-market activity already creates conflicts with Tribal and state gaming regulation. Those claims form the basis of its request for additional statutory language covering gaming.
The debate carries financial significance for Tribal governments. Tribal gaming generated a record $43.9 billion in gross gaming revenue during fiscal year 2024, according to National Indian Gaming Commission figures cited in coverage of the CLARITY Act dispute. More than 500 Tribal gaming establishments operated across 29 states. Gaming revenue supports government services and other programs in Tribal communities.
Heinrich Plans Amendment Addressing Prediction Markets
Senator Martin Heinrich of New Mexico also raised concerns about the treatment of Tribal and state gaming authority. After voting against advancing the legislation on September 15, Heinrich said he planned to introduce an amendment containing an IGRA and Tribal-state compact savings clause. His proposal would also prevent CFTC-registered entities from listing prediction contracts that resemble sports bets or casino-style gaming products.
Heinrich said:
“The legislation we voted on today undermines Tribal sovereignty and states’ police powers. And it directly threatens Tribes’ gaming revenues, which would mean less government services funding across Indian Country. That’s a lose-lose,” said Heinrich. “Giving prediction markets a free pass to sidestep existing law and Tribal sovereignty is wrong, in every conceivable way. That is not to say I oppose digital asset market structure legislation. But what that legislation absolutely must include is commonsense protections for state and Tribal gaming rights, including an Indian Gaming Regulatory Act and Tribal-state compact savings clause and a ban on prediction contracts that function like sports bets or casino games.”
IGRA has provided the federal framework for gaming on Tribal lands since 1988. It defines roles for Tribal governments and federal authorities, with states also participating through Tribal-state compacts where applicable. Tribal participation in regulated sports betting expanded after the Supreme Court’s 2018 Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Association decision allowed states to legalize sports wagering.
Heinrich had raised the prediction-market issue before the September debate. In July, he led a letter asking Senate committee leaders to address nationwide sports and event wagering through prediction markets. The Indian Gaming Association and National Congress of American Indians supported the effort alongside multiple Tribal governments.
Prediction Markets Remain at Center of Dispute
Kalshi operates as a CFTC-regulated designated contract market, while Polymarket has pursued a regulated route into the US market. Prediction exchanges classify their offerings as event contracts and have argued that federal commodities regulation permits them to operate across state boundaries. Critics of that model say certain sports contracts closely resemble conventional sports wagers.
The Indian Gaming Association argues that allowing those products under commodities law could let prediction-market operators compete with regulated gaming without following the same Tribal or state frameworks. Its requested changes would address that concern through a non-preemption provision and restrictions on sports and casino-related contracts.
Bean said the Association would continue opposing the legislation unless Congress includes those protections.
“Until Congress expressly provides that Tribal and state gaming laws and the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act are not preempted, and that federally regulated prediction markets cannot offer sports betting or casino games, Indian Country will continue to oppose the CLARITY Act,” Bean said. “Its enactment without these protections would represent one of the greatest threats to Tribal sovereignty in a generation.”
The dispute leaves prediction markets as a significant point of contention within the wider digital-asset legislation. The Association continues to seek statutory protections for existing gaming frameworks, while Heinrich’s planned amendment would address similar concerns through explicit provisions covering IGRA, Tribal-state compacts and CFTC-regulated event contracts.