Case: 25-7187, 03/10/2026, DktEntry: 75.1, Page 34 of 43
Murphy , 584 U.S. at 479–80. To the contrary, the majority opinion concluded with an observation utterly incompatible with Crypto.com’s contention: “The legalization of sports gambling requires an important policy choice, but the choice is not ours to make. Congress can regulate sports gambling directly, but if it elects not to do so, each State is free to act on its own.” Id. at 486. In other words, Crypto.com’s deregulatory elephant was hidden in a statutory mousehole far too small for the Supreme Court to notice when deciding whether sports betting would be legal. Crypto.com’s position that Congress legalized sports betting in 2010 would have certainly come as a surprise to the Supreme Court and litigants in Murphy —none of whom seemed to think that the state prohibition at issue had actually been preempted years earlier. Ignoring history, context, and common sense, Crypto.com presents an alternate reality in which a statutory scheme whose scope is limited to addressing the risk, discovery, and dissemination of commodity pricing information, see 7 U.S.C. § 5(a)–(b), governs nationwide sports betting. Crypto.com therefore creates a world where Congress repealed the comprehensive regulatory scheme set forth in IGRA, similar structures created by state law, and the then-federal policy requiring states to prohibit sports betting, as codified in PASPA. And Crypto.com incredibly argues all of this happened without even a whisper of legislative intent.
26
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs