Case 2:25-cv-00978-APG-BNW Document 75 Filed 09/15/25 Page 16 of 20
provisions. 13 In the absence of explicit congressional intent, this Court should uphold IGRA’s very clear, specific, and pervasive regulatory regime for gaming on Indian lands.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Further, the legislative history of the CEA reveals Congress’s concern about event contracts
facilitating sports betting. As mentioned above, the Special Rule’s principal drafter explained
Congress intended to prevent gambling via event contracts. 156 Cong. Rec. S5906–7. Rather than
demonstrate a “clear and manifest” intent to repeal IGRA, this legislative history shows the exact
opposite: Congress designed the Special Rule to prevent sports betting through supposed event
contracts.
As to IGRA’s criminal provisions, Congress likewise did not express a clear and manifest
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
intent to repeal DOJ’s authority. In fact, Congress expressly disclaimed such a repeal in the text of
the CEA. 7 U.S.C. § 16(e) (“Nothing in this chapter shall supersede or preempt … criminal
prosecution under any Federal criminal statute.”). It is impossible for the CFTC to exercise
exclusive jurisdiction over sports event contracts while the DOJ exercises its exclusive jurisdiction
over criminal prosecutions of violations of state gambling laws made applicable by IGRA to Indian
lands.
The party arguing that two statues are irreconcilable bears the “heavy burden” of proving
congressional intent to repeal. See Epic Sys. Corp. , 584 U.S. at 510. Crypto.com cannot meet that
heavy burden because there is a reasonable interpretation of the CEA that gives full effect to both
statutes: sports event contracts are not subject to the CFTC’s exclusive jurisdiction. Because these
statutes are capable of coexistence, the court must read them in a way that gives effect to both.
II. Ignoring the Applicability of IGRA Raises Serious Policy Concerns and Violates Federal Indian Policy
Crypto.com’s sports event contracts violate well-established federal Indian policy. The
Supreme Court has “consistently recognized that Indian tribes retain ‘attributes of sovereignty over
both their members and their territory.’” Cabazon , 480 U.S. at 207 (quoting United States v.
13 To the extent IGRA grants the NIGC regulatory authority over gaming on Indian lands, Congress likewise did not express its “clear and manifest” intent to repeal that authority. In fact, as noted above, Congress expressly reserved it. See 7 U.S.C. § 2(a)(1)(A).
- 16 -
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs