Case: 25-7187, 03/10/2026, DktEntry: 75.1, Page 20 of 43
statute.” Epic Sys. Corp. v. Lewis , 584 U.S. 497, 510 (2018) (citation modified); see also Shoshone-Bannock Tribes of Fort Hall Rsrv. v. U.S. Dep’t of the Interior , 153 F.4th 748, 759 (9th Cir. 2025). Congress’s intent to repeal must be “clear and manifest.” Epic Sys. , 584 U.S. at 510. “Congress does not alter the fundamental details of a regulatory scheme in vague terms or ancillary provisions—it does not, one might say, hide elephants in mouseholes.” Id. at 515 (citation modified). Here, IGRA and the CEA can easily be harmonized by reading the CEA to exclude sports betting, consistent with longstanding CFTC regulations. 1. Crypto.com’s sports-betting contracts are not “swaps.” As relevant here, the CEA defines “swaps” as “any agreement, contract, or transaction … that is dependent on the occurrence, nonoccurrence, or the extent of the occurrence of an event or contingency associated with a potential financial, economic, or commercial consequence.” 7 U.S.C. § 1a(47)(A)(ii). Crypto.com’s sports-betting contracts simply do not fall under this definition and Congress therefore could not have intended to repeal IGRA. Starting with the CEA’s plain language, Crypto.com’s sports-betting contracts are not dependent on the occurrence, nonoccurrence, or extent of the occurrence of a sports event—i.e., whether the sports event occurs—but rather on the outcome of the sports event (or parts thereof)—i.e., which team wins. The
12
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs