USCA4 Appeal: 25-1892
Doc: 16
Filed: 10/15/2025
Pg: 36 of 97
question was “not answered by the text” of the CEA, the court canvassed
evidence outside of the exclusive- jurisdiction provision’s text , including the
CEA’s “goals and policies , ” to hold that Congress sought to exempt state
gambling laws from the field over which the CFTC has exclusive jurisdiction.
JA163, 172. As to conflict preemption, the court concluded that the CEA and
Maryland law “work in tandem,” and ascribed any conflict to “ Kalshi ’ s desire
not to comply with Maryland law .” JA175-176. The court therefore
concluded that Kalshi did not show “ a likelihood of success on the merits, ”
and did not address whether Kalshi “ would suffer irreparable harm in the
absence of an injunction or whether the balance of equities or public interest ”
favor injunctive relief. JA176.
Kalshi appealed.
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT I.A. Starting with the plain text, every marker of congressional intent
confirms that Congress preempted the field of regulating trading on DCMs
like Kalshi. Congress granted the CFTC “exclusive jurisdiction” over trading
on DCMs, displacing state regulation. Congress deleted a provision that
would have preserved state regulation. And Congress’s avowed purpose in
establishing a uniform s et of rules for trading on DCMs was to “preempt the
field.”
21
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs