Case: 25-7187, 03/10/2026, DktEntry: 75.1, Page 35 of 43
Crypto.com’s revisionist history cannot withstand even the slightest scrutiny. As the district court aptly stated, “It is absurd to think that Congress intended for DCMs to turn into nationwide gambling venues on every topic under the sun to the exclusion of state regulation and with no comparable federal regulator without ever mentioning that was the goal when Congress added swaps to the CEA in 2010.” Order Granting Motion to Dissolve Preliminary Injunction at 20, Hendrick , No. 2:25-cv-00575, Dkt. No. 237. III. Crypto.com’s Preemption Argument Would Violate the Private Nondelegation Doctrine. Crypto.com’s preemption argument turns on the extraordinary claim that Congress delegated the power to preempt state law to an interested private party simply by self-certifying sports-betting contracts and listing them on its exchange. The private non-delegation doctrine, however, guards against precisely the type of unchecked, privately exercised powers upon which Crypto.com relies. See Carter v. Carter Coal Co. , 298 U.S. 238, 311 (1936). While the Supreme Court upholds congressional delegations of power to federal agencies with an intelligible principle, it applies a different standard when those delegations are to private entities. “[A] law … violates the private nondelegation doctrine when it allows non-government entities to govern.” FCC v. Consumers’ Rsch. , 606 U.S. 656, 697 (2025). Recently the Supreme Court found
27
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs