USCA4 Appeal: 25-1892
Doc: 44
Filed: 12/22/2025
Pg: 19 of 39
statutes by excluding sports-betting contracts from the CEA’s definition of “swap”—an interpretation that, in any case, is more faithful to statutory language and legislative intent. See 156 Cong. Rec. S5907 (2010) (statement of Sen. Lincoln) (“It would be quite easy to construct an ‘event contract’ around sporting events such as the Super Bowl, the Kentucky Derby, and Masters Golf Tournament. These types of contracts would not serve any real commercial purpose. Rather, they would be used solely for gambling.”). A. The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act The Supreme Court has “consistently recognized that Indian tribes retain ‘attributes of sovereignty over both their members and their territory.’” Cabazon , 480 U.S. at 207. Recognizing this sovereign authority, Congress enacted IGRA and mandated that tribes “have the exclusive right to regulate gaming activity on Indian lands.” 25 U.S.C. § 2701(5). IGRA provides that class III gaming activities (including sports betting) on Indian lands “shall be lawful” only if, among other things, those gaming activities are conducted in conformance with a tribal-state compact. 25 U.S.C. § 2710(d)(1); 25 C.F.R. § 502.4(c). Tribes can and do permit sports betting on their lands pursuant to such compacts. Indeed, the federal government has affirmatively
11
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs