USCA4 Appeal: 25-1892
Doc: 16
Filed: 10/15/2025
Pg: 38 of 97
B. The district court ’s grounds for rejecting field preemption do not
withstand scrutiny. All the evidence the district court identified to support
its position — the CEA’s text and history, case law construing the CEA , and
other federal laws related to gambling — support preemption rather than
calling it into doubt. C. The district court likewise erred in finding no conflict preemption.
The court did not attempt to explain how Kalshi could comply with
Maryland’s requirement that all positions be placed by individuals in
Maryland, which would be flatly impossible for a nationwide exchange that
must offer impartial access. It also never addressed how letting all 50 states
decide what contracts may be traded on DCMs could comport with the CEA’s
mandate of subjecting DCMs to a single, nationwide set of regulations. And
it improperly second- guessed Congress’s judgment about the importance of
subjecting DCMs to one set of uniform rules. D. Because the evidence of preemption is overwhelming, this Court
can reverse without deciding whether a presumption against preemption
applies. Regardless, the district court erred in applying such a presumption.
No presumption applies where, as here, a statute contains an express-
preemption clause, or where a state regulates in a domain not traditionally
subject to state regulation — such as trading on DCMs.
23
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs