Case 1:25-cv-12578-RGS Document 41-1 Filed 10/16/25 Page 18 of 24
The party arguing that two statues are irreconcilable bears the “heavy burden” of proving congressional intent to repeal. See Epic Sys. Corp. , 584 U.S. at 510. Robinhood cannot meet that heavy burden because there is a reasonable interpretation of the CEA that gives full effect to both statutes: sports event contracts are not subject to the CFTC’s exclusive jurisdiction. Because these statutes are capable of coexistence, the court must read them in a way that gives effect to both. C. Robinhood’s sports event contracts constitute “Class III Gaming” under IGRA IGRA advances the longstanding federal policy of promoting and sustaining tribal self- sufficiency. See 25 U.S.C. § 2701(4). In this regard, IGRA has been incredibly successful. 15 The revenue generated by tribal gaming supports thousands of jobs in hundreds of communities, and provides critical funding to state and local governments through revenue-sharing agreements, tax revenue, and economic stimulus. IGRA establishes a three-tier regulatory structure for Class III gaming on Indian lands, providing that such gaming is only lawful if it is: (1) authorized by tribal ordinance or resolution; (2) located in a state that permits such gaming; and (3) conducted in accordance with a tribal- state gaming compact. 25 U.S.C. § 2710(d)(1). IGRA also established the National Indian Gaming Commission (“NIGC”) to oversee much of this regulatory regime. 25 U.S.C. § 2704. This regulatory regime is comprehensive, and occupies the entire field of gaming on Indian lands. See Tamiami Partners, Ltd. v. Miccosukee Tribe of Indians , 63 F.3d 1030, 1033 (11th Cir. 1995) (IGRA was “intended to expressly preempt the field in the governance of gaming activities
15 See, e.g. , Nat’l Indian Gaming Comm’n, FY 2023 Gross Gaming Revenue Report 4–5 (July 2024), available at ***********nigc.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/GGR23_Final.pdf. 18
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs