Case: 25-7187, 03/10/2026, DktEntry: 75.1, Page 3 of 43
TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .................................................................................... ii IDENTITY AND INTERESTS OF AMICI ..............................................................1 INTRODUCTION .....................................................................................................3 ARGUMENT .............................................................................................................6 I. Congress Did Not Impliedly Repeal IGRA................................................6 A. IGRA’s Structure ....................................................................................6 B. Congress Did Not Repeal IGRA When It Enacted the CEA’s Definition of a “Swap” in 2010. ...............................................................................7 C. Crypto.com’s Theory Does Not Meet the Standard for Implied Repeals. 11 1. Crypto.com’s sports-betting contracts are not “swaps.”....................12 2. Congress did not manifest clear intent to repeal IGRA or to make the CFTC a gaming regulator....................................................................15 3. The Indian Canons of Construction require this Court to resolve any ambiguity in favor of tribes. ................................................................19 D. IGRA Regulates Online Gaming on Tribes’ Indian Lands-Including Crypto.com’s Sports-Betting Contracts. ..................................................20 II. The Major Questions Doctrine Forecloses Crypto.com’s Theory. ..........22 III. Crypto.com’s Preemption Argument Would Violate the Private Nondelegation Doctrine.................................................................................27 CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................29
i
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs