Case: 25-7187, 03/10/2026, DktEntry: 75.1, Page 33 of 43
Accordingly, because regulating gaming has long been a traditional state (and tribal) power, Crypto.com must show clear congressional language overturning federal policy. But it cannot because no such language exists. Rather, the CEA reinforces the federal policy in favor of state gambling regulation by disclaiming preemption of state gaming laws. See 7 U.S.C. § 16(e). And nothing in the definition of “swap” indicates that Congress meant to overturn the entire field of sports-betting regulation or Indian gaming. Second, sports betting has a “unique place in American history and society,” and therefore its own “political history.” See FDA v. Brown & Williamson , 529 U.S. 120, 159–60 (2000). Given this social and political history, at the time of the 2010 CEA amendments, Congress had already “created a distinct regulatory scheme” for sports betting—namely, PASPA. Id. The conflict between Crypto.com’s argument and the existence of PASPA’s nationwide sports-betting prohibition in 2010 therefore indicates that Congress could not have intended to regulate sports betting in the way that Crypto.com now claims. “Given this history and the breadth of the authority that [Crypto.com] has asserted [the CFTC has],” this Court should not defer to Crypto.com’s “expansive construction” of the CEA. Id. at 160. In holding PASPA unconstitutional, the Supreme Court made no suggestion that Congress had already preempted all state gaming laws eight years earlier.
25
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs