Case: 1:25-cv-15406 Document #: 43-1 Filed: 01/30/26 Page 10 of 17 PageID #:376
appropriate to oversee [gambling], or that Congress intended for [it] to exercise its jurisdiction or expend its resources in this manner.”). The CFTC’s own actions confirm that it has not asserted authority to regulate sports betting. In a recent advisory letter, the CFTC clarified it has not “taken any official action to approve the listing for trading of sports-related event contracts on any DCM.” CTFC Staff Letter No. 25-36 at 2 n.4 (Sep. 30, 2025). In this advisory letter, the CFTC noted that this issue is subject to ongoing litigation nationwide, and advised DCMs to ensure customers “understand the possible effects should State regulatory actions … result in termination of sports-related event contract[s].” Id. at 2 & n.3. Coinbase’s arguments thus stand in sharp contrast to the CFTC’s own unwillingness to regulate sports betting. 3. The Indian Canons of Construction require this Court to resolve any ambiguity in favor of tribes. Even if there were ambiguity as to whether Congress intended to repeal IGRA when it amended the CEA in 2010 (there is not), the Indian Canons of Construction require courts to resolve statutory ambiguities in favor of tribes. Bryan v. Itasca Cnty. , 426 U.S. 373, 392 (1976); Wisconsin v. Ho-Chunk Nation , 784 F.3d 1076, 1081 (7th Cir. 2015). Federal courts have consistently applied these canons to ensure that later-enacted statutes of general applicability cannot repeal earlier-enacted legislation specifically designed to advance the United States’ special relationship with tribes, without a clear statement from Congress. See, e.g. , Morton v. Mancari , 417 U.S. 535, 550 (1974); Shoshone-Bannock Tribes of Fort Hall Rsrv. v. DOI , 153 F.4th 748, 765 (9th Cir. 2025). This Court should therefore reject Coinbase’s preemption argument requiring an implied repeal of IGRA.
10
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs