Case 2:25-cv-00978-APG-BNW Document 75 Filed 09/15/25 Page 7 of 20
1)
By its plain language, the CEA does not preempt IGRA
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Crypto.com rests its case on its argument that the CEA grants “exclusive jurisdiction” to
the CFTC “with respect to accounts, agreements, … and transactions involving swaps or contracts
of sale of a commodity for future delivery …,” id. , and therefore preempts state law and, by effect,
IGRA. However, this exclusive jurisdiction is not universal; this same provision also provides a
savings clause, which states, “[e]xcept as hereinabove provided, nothing contained in this section
shall … supersede or limit the jurisdiction at any time conferred on the Securities and Exchange
Commission or other regulatory authorities under the laws of the United States or of any
State ….” Id. (emphasis added).
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
The CEA does not expressly preempt IGRA; there is no express statement of Congressional
intent for the CEA to preempt any or all of IGRA’s provisions. But moreover, the CEA does not
preempt IGRA by either field preemption or conflict preemption. First, while Crypto.com may be
correct that the CEA could imply some preemptive intent, “the fact that the CEA has some field
preemptive effect does not mean that the ‘field’ Congress intended for the CEA to occupy includes
state [or federal] gambling laws, and specifically sports wagering laws.” Martin , 2025 WL at *7.
The CEA does not in any way mention gaming on Indian lands. Rather, by the plain
language of the CEA, the “field” that Congress intended to occupy is the commodities trading
market (focusing on the risk, discovery, and dissemination of commodity pricing information), not
Indian gaming. See 7 U.S.C. § 5(a)–(b). Indeed, Congress went so far as to enact the Special Rule,
which shows a clear Congressional intent to disallow any “gaming” activity at all. That the two
only overlap here due to Crypto.com’s backdoor attempt to evade comprehensive gaming
regulations only emphasizes this point.
Second, the plain language of the CEA does not conflict with IGRA, except to the degree
that Crypto.com and others have unlawfully attempted to use it as a means of evading
comprehensive gaming regulations. Instead, compliance with both statutory regimes is entirely
possible, and nothing within IGRA’s requirements to offer Class III gaming on Indian lands
obstructs or invalidates the provisions of the CEA.
/ / /
- 7 -
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs