G2E 2026 Panel: Tribes and AGA Present United Front on Prediction Markets

On the opening day of G2E 2026 in Las Vegas, tribal gaming leaders took the stage for a session titled "The Power of Unity: Confronting the Prediction Markets Challenge." The panel, held September 28 in Venetian Ballroom F, put the G2E 2026 tribal panel on prediction markets at the center of the show's agenda and arrived less than two weeks after a federal appeals court ruled for tribal plaintiffs in a closely watched case.

Indian Gaming Association Executive Director Jason Giles moderated. Panelists included IGA Chairman David Bean, American Gaming Association President and CEO Bill Miller, tribal advocate and political strategist Holly Macarro and California Nations Indian Gaming Association Chairman James Siva. Billed topics included why unified tribal action is necessary and the legal, political and public-policy strategies available to protect tribal sovereignty and regulatory authority. Our G2E preview outlined the wider tribal agenda at the show.

The Ninth Circuit backdrop

The panel followed the Ninth Circuit's September 16 ruling in Blue Lake Rancheria v. Kalshi. As reported, the three-judge panel found the tribes likely to succeed on their Indian Gaming Regulatory Act claims, concluded that sports event contracts constitute gambling when accessed from tribal lands, and rejected the argument that the federal Commodity Exchange Act displaces IGRA. The court remanded the case to the district court to consider a preliminary injunction. Our earlier analysis of the ruling examines the reasoning.

A remand for consideration of an injunction is not a final judgment, and the case has further to run. But the ruling gave tribal speakers a concrete legal development to point to, and several comments at the show reflected it.

What speakers said

Siva said the prediction-market fight had helped "focus us and remind us exactly what our mission is," tying it to efforts to protect gaming exclusivity in California. In a separate G2E session reported by industry press, Mashantucket Pequot Tribal Nation Chairman Rodney Butler distinguished geofenced, state-regulated sports betting from prediction-market apps that are accessible without comparable controls.

Commercial-industry representatives echoed the opposition. Miller described prediction-market legal arguments as an unrecognizable reading of the Commodity Exchange Act. AGA Vice President of Government Relations Tres York reported that 45 of 50 state attorneys general oppose sports-related event contracts and that states have prevailed in 38 of 43 court rulings. Those figures are advocacy-group tallies and should be read as the AGA's characterization of a fast-moving docket. Roughly 20 states are reported to be litigating the question, and Supreme Court review is pending.

Observers noted a shift in the coalition's makeup: DraftKings and FanDuel left AGA membership in late 2025, and the association's current posture on prediction markets is more uniformly opposed. For tribes, which have at times been at odds with commercial operators over mobile sports betting, shared opposition here is notable.

Legislative and strategic track

Alongside litigation, Nevada Rep. Steven Horsford has introduced the Prediction Markets Are Gambling Act, which proponents say would reinforce court victories in statute. Our coverage of the bill explains its provisions. Tribal leaders have framed the issue as one of sovereignty and revenue: compacts typically trade exclusivity for payments that fund tribal government services, education and health care, and unregulated competitors operating on tribal lands without those obligations threaten that bargain.

That argument is explored further in the Legal Guide, which covers how IGRA allocates authority over Class III gaming among tribes, states and the federal government.

Why the unity message matters

Tribal gaming is not monolithic. Tribes differ on mobile sports betting, on compact strategy and on how to engage with federal agencies. Public displays of unity on prediction markets suggest that, for now, the issue cuts across those differences. Whether that holds will depend on court outcomes, on any Supreme Court review, and on whether prediction-market operators pursue state licensing as some commentators have suggested.

The prediction-market question also bears on the economics of tribal sportsbooks and compact exclusivity. For the ongoing record of how tribes are responding, see our four-track strategy analysis. The September 16 ruling and the G2E panel together mark the moment tribal opposition moved from scattered filings to a coordinated, publicly visible campaign.

What remains unresolved

Several open questions will shape how far the unity message carries. The Blue Lake case returns to the district court, where a preliminary injunction decision is still ahead, and other circuits have not all ruled the same way. Our coverage of the circuit split explains why a Supreme Court resolution is widely anticipated.

There is also the question of federal agency posture. The Commodity Futures Trading Commission's consultation with tribes has been a recurring subject, and tribal organizations have pressed for formal engagement before any rulemaking that touches gaming. Meanwhile, state attorneys general continue to bring their own actions, which means tribal and state interests are aligned in some courtrooms even as they compete over compacts elsewhere.

For tribal operators, the practical message from Las Vegas was that the fight will be waged on several fronts at once: in federal appeals courts, in Congress, before regulators and in public messaging. The G2E panel did not announce a new legal filing, and speakers framed the effort as an ongoing campaign. Observers should expect the next concrete signals from court dockets and from congressional action in the fall legislative session.