Case 2:25-cv-01541-APG-DJA Document 32 Filed 09/30/25 Page 7 of 21
on Indian lands, thereby preempting the comprehensive regulatory scheme set forth in IGRA.
1
Clearly, this cannot be the case. Any preemptive effect that the CEA has only applies to lawful
2
transactions that fall under the CFTC’s exclusive jurisdiction.
See 7 U.S.C. § 2(a)(1)(A).
3
Robinhood’s sports event contracts are neither.
4
1)
By its plain language, the CEA does not preempt IGRA
5
6
Robinhood rests its case on its argument that the CEA grants “exclusive jurisdiction” to the
7
CFTC “with respect to accounts, agreements, … and transactions involving swaps or contracts of
8
sale of a commodity for future delivery …,” id. , and therefore preempts state law and, by effect,
9
IGRA. However, this exclusive jurisdiction is not universal; this same provision also provides a
10
savings clause, which states, “[e]xcept as hereinabove provided, nothing contained in this section
11
shall … supersede or limit the jurisdiction at any time conferred on the Securities and Exchange
12
Commission or other regulatory authorities under the laws of the United States or of any
13
State ….” Id. (emphasis added).
14
The CEA does not expressly preempt IGRA; there is no express statement of Congressional
15
intent for the CEA to preempt any or all of IGRA’s provisions. But moreover, the CEA does not
16
preempt IGRA by either field preemption or conflict preemption. First, while Robinhood may be
17
correct that the CEA could imply some preemptive intent, “the fact that the CEA has some field-
18
preemptive effect does not mean that the ‘field’ Congress intended for the CEA to occupy includes
19
state [or federal] gambling laws, and specifically sports wagering laws.” Martin , 2025 WL
20
2194908, at *7.
21
The CEA does not in any way mention gaming on Indian lands. Rather, by the plain
22
language of the CEA, the “field” that Congress intended to occupy is the commodities trading
23
market (focusing on the risk, discovery, and dissemination of commodity pricing information), not
24
Indian gaming. See 7 U.S.C. § 5(a)–(b). Indeed, Congress went so far as to enact the Special Rule,
25
which shows a clear Congressional intent to disallow any “gaming” activity on DCMs at all. That
26
the two only overlap here due to Robinhood’s backdoor attempt to evade comprehensive gaming
27
28
- 7 -
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs