Case 4:25-cv-14092-SDK-KGA ECF No. 29-1, PageID.515 Filed 01/26/26 Page 26 of 32
regulators . . . . The [CFTC] is not a gaming regulator . . . and the [it] does not believe that it has the statutory mandate nor specialized experience appropriate to oversee [gambling], or that Congress intended for [it] to exercise its jurisdiction or expend its resources in this manner.”). The CFTC’s own actions confirm that it has not asserted authority to regulate sports betting. In a recent advisory letter, the CFTC clarified it has not “taken any official action to approve the listing for trading of sports-related event contracts on any DCM.” CTFC Staff Letter No. 25-36 at 2 n.4 (Sep. 30, 2025). 3. The Indian Canons of Construction require this Court to resolve any ambiguity in favor of tribes. Even if there were ambiguity as to whether Congress intended to repeal IGRA when it amended the CEA in 2010 (there is not), the Indian Canons of Construction require courts to resolve statutory ambiguities in favor of tribes. Montana v. Blackfeet Tribe of Indians , 471 U.S. 759, 766 (1985) (“[S]tatutes are to be construed liberally in favor of the Indians, with ambiguous provisions interpreted to their benefit.”). Federal courts have consistently applied these canons for over a half-century to ensure that later-enacted statutes of general applicability cannot repeal earlier-enacted legislation specifically designed to advance tribal interests, without a clear statement from Congress. See, e.g. , Mancari , 417 U.S. at 550–51; Swinomish Indian Tribal Cmty. v. BNSF Ry. Co. , 951 F.3d 1142, 1159–60 (9th Cir. 2020).
17
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs