Case: 25-7187, 03/10/2026, DktEntry: 75.1, Page 15 of 43
conducted on their Indian lands. See 25 U.S.C. §§ 2710(b)(2)(A), (d)(2)(A). For many tribes, gaming is not merely a commercial endeavor; rather, it is essential to their self-determination. See Chicken Ranch Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians v. California , 42 F.4th 1024, 1032 (9th Cir. 2022) (“Class III gaming is not only a source of substantial revenue for tribes, but the lifeblood on which many tribes ha[ve] come to rely .” (citation modified)). B. Congress Did Not Repeal IGRA When It Enacted the CEA’s Definition of a “Swap” in 2010. Crypto.com argues that Congress’s definition of a single term—“swaps”— within a statute whose entire purpose is to address the risk, discovery, and dissemination of commodity prices, 7 U.S.C. § 5(a)–(b), preempts the field of what is unequivocally sports betting, and therefore effectively repealed core provisions of IGRA. See Pl.’s Opening Brief at 4–5, 39–54, Dkt. No. 12.1. Under this theory, Congress silently stripped away tribes’ and states’ longstanding authority over sports betting 4 while allowing for-profit companies like Crypto.com to run internet casinos pursuant to their own private oversight.
4 Crypto.com has suggested that that its sports-event contracts are not gaming because there is no betting against the “house.” Pl.’s Reply Br. in Supp. of Mot. for Prelim. Inj. at 6, Crypto.com v. Dreitzer , No. 2:25-cv-00978 (D. Nev. Jul. 29, 2025), Dkt. No. 41. Not so. A “house” is not a necessary element of gaming. For example, pari-mutuel wagering—a type of betting system where all bets or wagers
7
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs