Case 1:25-cv-12578-RGS Document 41-1 Filed 10/16/25 Page 16 of 24
in favor of the Indians, and should not infer congressional intent to repeal an earlier, more specific statute governing activities on Indian lands without a clear statement from Congress. Applying this principle to the CEA, there is no language suggesting that Congress intended to repeal IGRA’s regulation of sports betting on Indian lands, let alone “clear and manifest” intent to repeal these key provisions of IGRA. The CEA does not in any way mention gaming on Indian lands. Rather, by the plain language of the CEA, it applies to the commodities trading market (focusing on the risk, discovery, and dissemination of commodity pricing information), not Indian gaming. See 7 U.S.C. § 5(a)–(b). Indeed, Congress went so far as to enact the Special Rule, which shows a clear Congressional intent to disallow any “gaming” activity on DCMs at all. That the two only overlap here due to Robinhood’s backdoor attempt to evade comprehensive gaming regulations only emphasizes this point. 13 Moreover, the plain language of the CEA does not conflict with IGRA, except to the degree that Robinhood and others have unlawfully attempted to use it as a means of evading comprehensive gaming regulations. Instead, compliance with both statutory regimes is entirely possible, and nothing within IGRA’s requirements to offer Class III gaming on Indian lands obstructs or invalidates the provisions of the CEA. At most, the definition of “swaps” upon which Robinhood relies is ambiguous as to whether it encompasses sports event contracts of the kind offered by Robinhood—i.e., sports 13 Further, under Robinhood’s theory, simply calling a sports wager a “swap”—regardless of whether it is, actually, a valid “swap”—and listing it for trade on a DCM automatically grants the CFTC exclusive jurisdiction, to the detriment of all other regulatory authorities. What, then, would limit Robinhood or any other CFTC-registered entity from simply calling “contracts” on other traditional forms of gaming—such as roulette and lotteries—“swaps” and subjecting them to the exclusive jurisdiction of the CFTC? According to Robinhood, CFTC inaction—despite the CFTC categorically banning “gaming” contracts via 17 C.F.R. § 40.11(a)—is all that is required to bless contracts blatantly designed for no other purpose than to enable gambling. 16
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs