Case: 25-7831, 03/10/2026, DktEntry: 81.1, Page 8 of 43
of subsections of complex derivatives-related statutes, Congress snuck in its intent to drastically reshape this country’s gambling laws. But when Congress makes major changes to this nation’s power structure, it speaks clearly. Bond v. United States , 572 U.S. 844, 857–59 (2014); see also Learning Res., Inc. v. Trump , 607 U.S. —, 2026 WL 477534, at *7–*9 (2026) (Roberts, C.J., op.). Thus, if Congress truly meant to preempt the States’ traditional authority over sports betting, it would not be a secret. That matters here because nothing in the text of the relevant statutes displaces (much less clearly displaces) the States’ traditional authority over sports betting. In fact, even with all those statutes in place, the Supreme Court recently declared that States are “free to act” as they wish on the “controversial subject” of “sports gambling.” Murphy v. NCAA , 584 U.S. 453, 486 (2018). The amici States, however, do not offer this brief to repeat themselves. They instead address a new development: the CFTC’s recent decision to pick a side. That decision was a sharp pivot. Prediction markets began offering online sports betting in January 2025. For roughly a year there- after, the CFTC was careful not to endorse this behavior. Indeed, just a few months ago, the CFTC warned prediction markets that they should
2
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs