Tribal gaming leaders have stepped up their fight against the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act, warning that the latest revisions still leave the door open for federally regulated prediction markets to offer sports and casino-style products outside Tribal and state gaming law.
Key takeaways
- The Indian Gaming Association says Senator Lummis's revised text fails to protect IGRA and Tribal gaming authority
- It wants an explicit non-preemption clause and a ban on sports and casino contracts on CFTC-regulated exchanges
- Senator Martin Heinrich voted against advancing the bill on September 15 and plans a savings-clause amendment
- Tribal gaming generated a record $43.9 billion in GGR in fiscal year 2024
Revisions Fall Short, Say Tribes
In a statement issued on September 11, the Indian Gaming Association said the changes proposed for the newest version of the CLARITY Act did not tackle its core objections. Senator Cynthia Lummis had published updated legislative language after the gaming industry and other stakeholders voiced concerns. While the revisions touched on decentralised finance, the Association said they left untouched its worries about the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) and how federal commodities law interacts with existing gaming regulation.
The bill is part of a wider push to set federal rules for digital assets and to define how responsibilities are split between the Securities and Exchange Commission and the CFTC. Prediction markets have been pulled into the debate because operators such as Kalshi run under federal commodities oversight — and the Association argues that sports event contracts offered through that route can clash with Tribal and state gaming laws.
What Tribal Gaming Wants Written Into Law
The Association is calling on Congress to state in plain terms that federal commodities law does not preempt Tribal gaming laws, state gaming laws or the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA). It also wants designated contract markets prohibited from listing contracts based on sports betting or casino games. According to the group, the revised bill leaves both issues open.
"We want to make it absolutely clear that Indian Country is opposed to this version of the CLARITY Act. 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."
— David Z. Bean, Chairman, Indian Gaming Association
The group has also taken aim at the reach of the CFTC's proposed powers, describing the legislation as the biggest expansion of the regulator's authority since the Dodd-Frank Act of 2010. It argues that current prediction-market activity already conflicts with Tribal and state gaming regulation — the basis for its demand for gaming-specific statutory language.
What Is at Stake for Tribal Nations
| $43.9B Tribal GGR, FY2024 (record) |
500+ Tribal gaming establishments |
29 States with Tribal gaming |
Figures from the National Indian Gaming Commission show just how much is riding on the outcome. Tribal gaming produced a record $43.9 billion in gross gaming revenue in fiscal year 2024, across more than 500 establishments in 29 states. That revenue funds government services and community programmes throughout Indian Country.
Heinrich Readies an Amendment
Senator Martin Heinrich of New Mexico shares those concerns. After voting against moving the legislation forward on September 15, he said he would introduce an amendment containing an IGRA and Tribal-state compact savings clause. The proposal would also stop CFTC-registered entities from listing prediction contracts that resemble sports bets or casino-style games.
"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."
— Senator Martin Heinrich (D-NM)
Heinrich stressed he is not against digital asset market structure legislation as such, but said giving prediction markets "a free pass to sidestep existing law and Tribal sovereignty is wrong, in every conceivable way." Any such bill, he argued, must include "commonsense protections for state and Tribal gaming rights," including a savings clause and "a ban on prediction contracts that function like sports bets or casino games."
The senator had been pressing the issue well before September. In July he led a letter urging Senate committee leaders to address nationwide sports and event wagering via prediction markets — an effort backed by the Indian Gaming Association, the National Congress of American Indians and several Tribal governments.
IGRA and the Sports Betting Backdrop
Since 1988, IGRA has provided the federal framework for gaming on Tribal lands, setting out the roles of Tribal governments and federal authorities, with states involved through Tribal-state compacts where relevant. Tribal participation in legal sports betting grew after the Supreme Court's 2018 Murphy v. NCAA ruling opened the way for states to legalise sports wagering.
Prediction Markets at the Heart of the Fight
Kalshi operates as a CFTC-regulated designated contract market, while Polymarket has pursued its own regulated path into the US. Prediction exchanges describe their products as event contracts and maintain that federal commodities rules allow them to operate across state lines. Critics counter that many sports contracts are, in practice, indistinguishable from traditional sports bets.
The Indian Gaming Association warns that permitting these products under commodities law would let prediction-market operators compete with regulated gaming without being bound by the same Tribal or state rules. Its proposed fix combines a non-preemption provision with limits on sports and casino-related contracts — and Bean made clear the opposition will not ease until both are in place.
"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. Its enactment without these protections would represent one of the greatest threats to Tribal sovereignty in a generation."
— David Z. Bean, Chairman, Indian Gaming Association
For now, prediction markets remain one of the most contested elements of the broader digital-asset bill. Tribal gaming groups continue to push for statutory safeguards for existing gaming frameworks, while Heinrich's planned amendment seeks to write similar protections — covering IGRA, Tribal-state compacts and CFTC-regulated event contracts — directly into the legislation.
