Case: 25-7187, 03/10/2026, DktEntry: 75.1, Page 23 of 43
2.
Congress did not manifest clear intent to repeal IGRA or to make the CFTC a gaming regulator.
Congress did not repeal IGRA and grant the CFTC the exclusive authority to regulate nationwide sports betting. In fact, Congress expressed the opposite intent and went out of its way to prevent event-contract markets from being used to conduct gambling. See 156 Cong. Rec. S5906-07 (daily ed. Jul. 15, 2010) (colloquy between Sens. Feinstein and Lincoln). Specifically, Congress enacted the “Special Rule” authorizing the CFTC to “determine that such agreements, contracts, or transactions are contrary to the public interest” and to disallow any “gaming” activity on DCMs at all. See 7 U.S.C. § 7a-2(c)(5)(C)(i)–(ii). The CFTC acted consistently with Congress’s intent by promulgating its blanket prohibition of event contracts involving gaming. 6 17 C.F.R. § 40.11(a)(1). The CFTC explained that its “prohibition of certain ‘gaming’ contracts is consistent 6 Crypto.com argues that even if its sports-betting contracts “resemble gaming,” that is permissible because the CEA could cover some gaming-related contracts “unless and until the CFTC prohibits them.” Pl.’s Opening Br, at 61–62, Dkt. No. 12.1. But Crypto.com contradicts itself: as Crypto.com previously (and correctly) acknowledged, “the CEA gives the CFTC discretion to prohibit the trading of swaps that ‘involve … gaming,’ and the CFTC exercised that jurisdiction through rulemaking that prohibits a DCM from listing such contracts.” Pl.’s Reply Br. in Supp. of Mot. for Judg. On the Pleadings and Mot. to Strike at 11, Crypto.com v. Dreitzer , No. 2:25-cv-00978 (D. Nev. Sep. 22, 2025), Dkt No. 87 (citing 17 C.F.R. § 40.11(a)). Thus, in Crypto.com’s own words, “[i]f Sports Event Contracts involve gaming, and are therefore regulated by [Nevada], then they cannot be traded on a DCM without violating this rule.” Id.
15
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs