Case 1:25-cv-12578-RGS Document 41-1 Filed 10/16/25 Page 3 of 24
2003). This delicate balance of federal, tribal, and state interests has allowed tribes to generate substantial gaming revenue, which directly funds important tribal government services that benefit tribal citizens. Robinhood Derivatives, LLC (“Robinhood”) unlawfully and unfairly entered into the gaming market, which adversely impacts tribal gaming revenue and infringes upon the benefit of tribes’ bargained-for compacts. Additionally, by offering its so-called sports event contracts under the guise of commodity trading pursuant to the Commodity Exchange Act (“CEA”), Robinhood impedes tribes’ inherent sovereign right to regulate gaming activity on Indian lands. Contrary to Robinhood’s arguments: (1) theCEA does not exclusively govern its gaming-related sports event contracts; (2) such contracts are expressly prohibited by the CEA and Commodity Futures Trading Commission’s (“CFTC”) own regulations; (3) the CEA does not impliedly repeal IGRA; and (4) federal, state, and tribal gaming laws (including IGRA), therefore, apply to and govern its sports wagering activity. Because Robinhood has failed to establish a likelihood of success on the merits, this Court should deny its motion for preliminary injunction. In addition, this Court should grant the Defendants’ motion to dismiss. I. IGRA Governs Robinhood’s Sports Betting Conduct on Indian Lands A. The CEA does not exclusively govern gaming-related sports event contracts Congress has been regulating commodity futures for more than a century, historically focusing on agricultural commodities. See Merrill Lynch v. Curran , 456 U.S. 353, 357–63 (1982). However, in 2010, Congress amended the CEA, in part, to allow for “event contracts” through the “Special Rule.” See 7 U.S.C. § 7a-2(c)(5)(C). Recognizing the slippery slope of event contracts, Congress specifically authorized the CFTC to prohibit certain types of event
3
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs