Case: 25-7187, 03/10/2026, DktEntry: 75.1, Page 13 of 43
what gaming activities may take place on their lands. Thus, tribal jurisdiction extends to gaming, which has long been recognized by the Supreme Court. See California v. Cabazon Band of Mission Indians , 480 U.S. 202, 218–22 (1987); 25 U.S.C. § 2701(5). In 1988, Congress enacted IGRA “to provide a statutory basis for the regulation of gaming by an Indian tribe … to ensure that the Indian tribe is the primary beneficiary of the gaming operation, and to assure that gaming is conducted fairly and honestly by both the operators and players….” 25 U.S.C. § 2702(2). Crypto.com asks this Court to subvert this longstanding and comprehensive regulatory regime. The consequences of Crypto.com’s arguments are difficult to overstate. Its reading of the Commodity Exchange Act (“CEA”) would amount to a sub silentio reversal of congressional policy and Supreme Court precedent; undermine existing tribal-state gaming compacts and regulatory frameworks; allow Crypto.com to siphon gaming revenues from tribal and state governments; and diminish tribal self-determination. Accordingly, this Court should affirm the district court’s decision to deny Crypto.com’s motion for judgment on the pleadings and motion for preliminary injunction.
5
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs