Case 2:25-cv-00978-APG-BNW Document 74 Filed 09/15/25 Page 6 of 8
Second, the proposed amicus brief is useful to this Court in deciding whether to deny
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Crypto.com’s motion for judgment on the pleadings because it provides the Court with legal
arguments and relevant context not raised by either party. In their response to Crypto.com’s
motion for summary, Defendants argue that the Commodity Exchange Act (“CEA”) does not
preempt Nevada’s state gaming laws. While the Tribal Amici concur with and support the
arguments advanced by the Defendants, they believe that the additional arguments included in the
accompanying brief are relevant and will be helpful to the Court’s deliberation of the case. In
particular, the Tribal Amici have a special interest in the subject matter of the suit because it
directly impacts tribal sovereignty and gaming that occurs on Indian lands. Additionally, the
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Tribal Amici present additional arguments as to why the CEA does not exclusively govern
Crypto.com’s sports event contracts because it neither preempts nor impliedly repeals the Indian
Gaming Regulatory Act, and Crypto.com’s legal position would otherwise violate federal Indian
policy.
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
- 6 -
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs