Case 4:25-cv-14092-SDK-KGA ECF No. 29-1, PageID.518 Filed 01/26/26 Page 29 of 32
within traditional state power. See Murphy v. NCAA , 584 U.S. 453, 474, 481–85 (2018); accord United States v. Washington , 879 F.2d 1400, 1401 (6th Cir. 1989) (“The enactment of gambling laws is clearly a proper exercise of the state’s police power in an effort to promote the public welfare.”). As the Supreme Court noted in Murphy , Congress has long structured federal criminal law to “respect the policy choices of the people of each State on the controversial issue of gambling.” 584 U.S. at 484; Chicken Ranch , 42 F.4th at 1031 (explaining that IGRA strikes “a delicate balance” between tribal and state sovereignty over gaming). And even when Congress chose to prohibit sports betting nationally with PASPA, it did so through state regulation, rather than by directly regulating private actors. See Murphy , 584 U.S. at 484–85. Similarly, courts have long recognized tribes’ inherent sovereign authority to regulate gaming on their lands. See Cabazon , 480 U.S. at 207–14. And later- enacted statutes of general applicability—like the CEA—cannot repeal earlier- enacted legislation that is specifically designed to advance the United States’ special relationship with tribes—such as IGRA—without a clear statement from Congress. See, e.g., Mancari , 417 U.S. at 550–51. Accordingly, Coinbase must show clear congressional language overturning federal policy. But it cannot because no such language exists.
20
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs