Who Can Sign for a Tribe? The Alabama-Quassarte Suit Over PokkeTrades

The Alabama-Quassarte Tribal Town lawsuit against Kalshi is being read as another front in the fight between tribes and prediction markets. The complaint itself points somewhere more basic. Filed on October 30 in the Muscogee (Creek) Nation District Court, it alleges that the agreement behind PokkeTrades, a planned app built on Kalshi's exchange, was signed by someone without authority to represent the tribe. That claim, if it holds, raises a question that applies to every vendor, lender and partner that does business with a tribal government: who has the power to bind the tribe, and how does a counterparty know?

What the complaint alleges

The plaintiffs are the Alabama-Quassarte Tribal Town, an Oklahoma tribal nation, and Samuel Marshall Jr., who says he is its rightful chief. The defendants are Kalshi, its chief executive and co-founder Tarek Mansour, Wilson Yargee and Michael Stopp. PokkeTrades was announced on October 7 as one of several tribe-branded apps running on Kalshi's infrastructure, a development we covered in our report on four tribes launching Kalshi-powered apps. A November launch had been planned.

According to reporting on the filing, the Marshall administration argues that Yargee lacked authority to enter the deal, that the tribal governing committee never approved or ratified it, and that Yargee was removed from office in 2021. Both men say they won reelection in 2025, and reporting indicates the Bureau of Indian Affairs has acknowledged the leadership dispute. Yargee denies he was ousted and says he was authorized to negotiate with Kalshi.

The complaint asks for an emergency restraining order halting the launch, a public withdrawal of statements about tribal leadership and recognition of Marshall as chief. It asserts fraud, false advertising and civil conspiracy and seeks compensatory and punitive damages. It also alleges reputational harm, including the tribe's exclusion from the National Congress of American Indians annual convention.

Kalshi denies the allegations. "A tribal council approved the partnership and a signed contract is in place," spokeswoman Jacki McGavick said. Related proceedings add texture: an earlier case in the same tribal court was dismissed because sovereign immunity had not been waived, and an Okmulgee County court has stripped Yargee of signing authority on tribal bank accounts.

Authority to sign is a core tribal governance question

Every tribal government decides for itself, through its constitution, ordinances and resolutions, who may act on its behalf and how. A chief or chairperson may have authority to sign some agreements alone and need council approval for others. Contracts that waive sovereign immunity often require a specific resolution. When a counterparty relies on a signature without confirming that the required approvals exist, the agreement may be vulnerable regardless of its commercial merits.

Gaming has developed more formal safeguards on this point than most industries. Management contracts require approval by the National Indian Gaming Commission, which reviews whether the agreement was properly authorized. Gaming vendors typically go through tribal licensing, and lenders to tribal casinos commonly require certified council resolutions and legal opinions confirming authority and any immunity waiver. Our analysis of limited sovereign immunity waivers in casino contracts describes how those provisions are usually structured.

Prediction market partnerships sit outside that framework. Because the apps are positioned as operating under federal commodities regulation rather than IGRA, the review steps that would accompany a casino management agreement do not automatically apply. That places more weight on the counterparty's own diligence and on the tribe's internal approval records.

When leadership is contested, the questions multiply: which governing body is recognized, which resolutions are valid, and which forum decides.

Forum and immunity

The choice of tribal court is notable. Tribal courts are the primary forum for many disputes arising on or involving tribal governments, and federal courts often expect parties to exhaust tribal remedies first, a principle explained in our tribal court exhaustion doctrine explainer. The earlier dismissal on sovereign immunity grounds is a reminder that immunity cuts in several directions in intra-tribal disputes, shaping which claims can proceed and against whom.

Leadership disputes also tend to reach federal agencies. When two factions claim to govern a tribe, the Interior Department may need to decide, at least for its own purposes, which government it deals with. Those determinations can affect funding, approvals and, for gaming tribes, regulatory filings. Nothing in the public record so far indicates how the BIA will treat this dispute going forward.

What it means beyond one app

The outcome of the case will matter most to the Alabama-Quassarte Tribal Town and its members. For the broader industry, the lesson is less about prediction markets than about process. Tribes entering new kinds of commercial relationships, whether digital wagering partnerships, technology licensing or hospitality ventures, carry the same governance requirements they bring to casino deals. Partners who treat tribal approvals as formalities take on risk that can surface well after a launch announcement.

For readers following the Oklahoma context, the Oklahoma state hub tracks compacted tribes and properties. We will report on the tribal court's response to the request for a restraining order as the record develops.