Case: 25-7187, 03/10/2026, DktEntry: 75.1, Page 19 of 43
This Court should therefore reject Crypto.com’s boundless interpretation of a “swap” and give effect to both statutes by excluding sports-betting contracts, including Crypto.com’s, from the CEA’s definition of “swap” as the district court did. See ER-24–30. Such an interpretation is also more faithful to the CEA’s statutory language and legislative intent. See 156 Cong. Rec. S5907 (daily ed. Jul. 15, 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 … be used solely for gambling.”). C. Crypto.com’s Theory Does Not Meet the Standard for Implied Repeals. Crypto.com’s preemption argument must be rejected because it would manufacture an implied repeal of IGRA where none exists. Crypto.com cannot meet the heavy burden of proving Congress intended to repeal IGRA because there is a reasonable interpretation of the CEA that gives full effect to both statutes: the CEA’s definition of “swap”—and thus the CFTC’s jurisdiction over such transactions—simply does not extend to Crypto.com’s sports bets. Both the Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit apply the “strong presumption that repeals by implication are disfavored and that Congress will specifically address preexisting law when it wishes to suspend its normal operations in a later
11
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs