Case: 25-7187, 03/10/2026, DktEntry: 75.1, Page 28 of 43
later-enacted statutes of general applicability cannot repeal earlier-enacted legislation specifically designed to advance the United States’ special relationship with tribes, without a clear statement from Congress. See, e.g. , Morton v. Mancari , 417 U.S. 535, 550–51 (1974); Swinomish Indian Tribal Cmty. v. BNSF Ry. Co. , 951 F.3d 1142, 1159–60 (9th Cir. 2020); Shoshone-Bannock Tribes , 153 F.4th at 765. This Court should therefore reject Crypto.com’s preemption argument requiring an implied repeal of IGRA. D. IGRA Regulates Online Gaming on Tribes’ Indian Lands- Including Crypto.com’s Sports-Betting Contracts. Crypto.com has tried to argue that IGRA is not relevant because its online activity does not occur on “Indian lands.” See Pl.’s Response to Br. of Amici Curiae et al. at 2, Crypto.com v. Dreitzer , No. 2:25-cv-00978 (D. Nev. Sep. 29, 2025), Dkt. No. 92. However, this is plainly wrong. IGRA allows states and tribes to allocate jurisdiction over the regulation of internet gaming conducted by a tribe throughout the state, including on its Indian lands. See W. Flagler Assocs., Ltd. v. Haaland , 71 F.4th 1059, 1061–62, 1066 (D.C. Cir. 2023), cert denied , 144 S. Ct. 2671 (2024). IGRA’s implementing regulations also expressly state that tribes can regulate online gaming under the terms of their IGRA compacts. See 25 C.F.R. § 293.26.
20
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs