Case 1:25-cv-12578-RGS Document 41-1 Filed 10/16/25 Page 14 of 24
§ 1166(d). Under Robinhood’s theory, the CEA likewise impliedly repealed DOJ’s jurisdiction over such criminal prosecutions. If taken as true, Robinhood’s argument—that the CTFC has exclusive jurisdiction over its sports betting, and that state or tribal gaming laws do not govern its activity—necessarily presumes that the CEA repeals IGRA. The Supreme Court applies the “strong presumption that repeals by implication are ‘disfavored’ and that ‘Congress will specifically address’ preexisting law when it wishes to suspend its normal operations in a later statute.” Epic Sys. Corp. v. Lewis , 584 U.S. 497, 510 (2018) (citing United States v. Fausto , 584 U.S. 439, 452, 453 (1988)). Congress’s intent to repeal must be “clear and manifest.” Posadas v. Nat’l City Bank of N.Y. , 296 U.S. 497, 503 (1936). “[W]hen two statutes are capable of co-existence, it is the duty of the courts, absent a clearly expressed congressional intention to the contrary, to regard each as effective.” Morton v. Mancari , 417 U.S. 535, 551 (1974). “[T]he only permissible justification for a repeal by implication is when the earlier and later statutes are irreconcilable.” Id. at 550 (citing Georgia v. Pa. R.R. Co. , 324 U.S. 439, 456–57 (1945)). Further, “the specific governs the general,” particularly where “a general permission or prohibition is contradicted by a specific prohibition or permission.” RadLAX Gateway Hotel, LLC v. Amalgamated Bank , 566 U.S. 639, 645 (2012). Finally, the Indian Canons of Construction 12 require courts to resolve statutory ambiguities in favor of tribes. Bryan v. Itasca County , 426 U.S. 373, 392 (1976).
12 As the Justice Blackmun has explained:
Because Congress’ authority to legislate unilaterally on behalf of the Indians derives from the presumption that Congress will act with benevolence, courts “have developed canons of construction that 14
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs