Case 2:25-cv-01541-APG-DJA Document 32 Filed 09/30/25 Page 17 of 21
demonstrate a “clear and manifest” intent to repeal IGRA, this legislative history shows the exact
1
opposite: Congress designed the Special Rule to prevent sports betting through supposed event
2
contracts.
3
As to IGRA’s criminal provisions, Congress likewise did not express a clear and manifest
4
intent to repeal DOJ’s authority. In fact, Congress expressly disclaimed such a repeal in the text of
5
the CEA. 7 U.S.C. § 16(e) (“Nothing in this chapter shall supersede or preempt … criminal
6
prosecution under any Federal criminal statute.”). It is impossible for the CFTC to exercise
7
exclusive jurisdiction over sports event contracts while the DOJ exercises its exclusive jurisdiction
8
over criminal prosecutions of violations of state gambling laws made applicable by IGRA to Indian
9
lands.
10
The party arguing that two statues are irreconcilable bears the “heavy burden” of proving
11
congressional intent to repeal. See Epic Sys. Corp. , 584 U.S. at 510. Robinhood cannot meet that
12
heavy burden because there is a reasonable interpretation of the CEA that gives full effect to both
13
statutes: sports event contracts are not subject to the CFTC’s exclusive jurisdiction. Because these
14
statutes are capable of coexistence, the court must read them in a way that gives effect to both.
15
II. Ignoring the Applicability of IGRA Raises Serious Policy Concerns and
16
Violates Federal Indian Policy
17
Robinhood’s sports event contracts violate well-established federal Indian policy. The
18
Supreme Court has “consistently recognized that Indian tribes retain ‘attributes of sovereignty over
19
both their members and their territory.’” Cabazon , 480 U.S. at 207 (quoting United States v.
20
Mazurie , 419 U.S. 544, 557 (1975)). Additionally, “the Constitution grants Congress broad
21
general powers to legislate in respect to Indian tribes,” and those powers are “constantly described
22
as plenary and exclusive.” United States v. Lara , 541 U.S. 193, 200 (2004). “And yet [Indian
23
tribes] remain ‘separate sovereigns pre-existing the Constitution.’” Michigan v. Bay Mills Indian
24
Cmty. , 572 U.S. 782, 788 (2014) (quoting Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez , 436 U.S. 49, 56
25
(1978)). “A key goal of the Federal Government is to render tribes more self-sufficient, and better
26
positioned to fund their own sovereign functions, rather than relying on federal funding.” Id. at
27
810 (Sotomayor, J., concurring) (citing 25 U.S.C. § 2702(1)).
28
- 17 -
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs