Case: 25-7187, 03/10/2026, DktEntry: 75.1, Page 27 of 43
However, his recent statements are neither binding on this Court nor persuasive, and his recent directives have no bearing on the outcome of this litigation. At bottom, Mr. Selig’s recent statements do not address key legal questions at issue in this appeal, including whether the CFTC’s blanket ban on event contracts involving gaming at 17 C.F.R. § 40.11(a)(1) extends to Crypto.com’s sports-betting contracts. And even if his statements or the positions the CFTC took in its amicus brief did, the power to decide what the law says ultimately belongs to the courts, not executive officials. See Loper Bright Enters. v. Raimondo , 603 U.S. 369, 385–86 (2024). This Court should therefore reject Crypto.com’s efforts to expand the CFTC’s jurisdiction to a vast new area of regulation. 3. The Indian Canons of Construction require this Court to resolve any ambiguity in favor of tribes. Even if there were ambiguity as to whether Congress intended to repeal IGRA (there is not), the Indian Canons of Construction require courts to resolve statutory ambiguities in favor of tribes. Montana v. Blackfeet Tribe of Indians , 471 U.S. 759, 766 (1985) (“[S]tatutes are to be construed liberally in favor of the Indians, with ambiguous provisions interpreted to their benefit.”); Artichoke Joe’s California Grand Casino v. Norton , 353 F.3d 712, 729 (9th Cir. 2003). Federal courts have consistently applied these canons over a half-century to ensure that
19
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs