Case: 25-7187, 03/10/2026, DktEntry: 75.1, Page 31 of 43
‘radical or fundamental change’ to a statutory scheme.” Id. (quoting MCI Telecomms. Corp. v. Am. Telephone & Telegraph Co. , 512 U.S. 218, 229 (1994)); see also Learning Res. v. Trump , No. 24-1287, 2026 WL 477534, at *2 (U.S. Feb. 20, 2026). In effect, Crypto.com contends that the 2010 CEA amendments displaced state and tribal gaming regulations, undermined all tribal-state gaming compacts, legalized sports betting nationwide, and placed sports betting under the regulatory jurisdiction of the CFTC, all at a time when federal law broadly prohibited sports betting. This is unquestionably a “radical” and “fundamental” overhaul to both PASPA and IGRA, and certainly raises concerns of “economic and political significance.” West Virginia , 597 U.S. at 721. This Court therefore has significant “reason to hesitate” and should require “clear congressional authorization” before even considering Crypto.com’s preemption argument. Id. at 721, 724. First, Congress must be clear when it “alters the federal-state framework by permitting federal encroachment upon a traditional state power.” Solid Waste Agency v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs , 531 U.S. 159, 172–73 (2001). Here, gaming regulation, and even sports-betting regulation specifically, has been understood to be within traditional state power. See Murphy v. NCAA , 584 U.S. 453, 474, 481– 85 (2018); see also Artichoke Joe’s , 353 F.3d at 737 (“The circuits that have given significant attention to equal protection challenges to state gambling laws have, by
23
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs