USCA4 Appeal: 25-1892
Doc: 16
Filed: 10/15/2025
Pg: 39 of 97
STANDARD OF REVIEW This Court reviews a “ denial of a preliminary injunction for abuse of discretion, reviewing factual findings for clear error and legal conclusions de novo. ” Leaders of a Beautiful Struggle v. Balt. Police Dep’t , 2 F.4th 330, 339 (4th Cir. 2021). “[T]he court abuses its discretion when it makes an error of law.” Id. ARGUMENT The plain text of the CEA makes clear that the CFTC — and only the
CFTC — may regulate trading on DCMs. Every other marker of congressional
intent confirms what the statute’s text dictates. The district court held to the
contrary only by reading an extratextual gambling exception into the CEA’s
text and committing multiple other legal errors. This Court should reverse. I. T HE CEA P REEMPTS M ARYLAND ’ S G AMBLING L AWS A S A PPLIED T O K ALSHI . The Supremacy C lause sets out a “fundamental principle of the Constitution” that “Congress has the power to preempt state law.” Crosby v. Nat’l Foreign Trade Council , 530 U.S. 363, 372 (2000); U.S. Const., art. VI, cl. 2. Federal law has preemptive effect no matter how “clearly within a State’s acknowledged power” the state’s law resides. Free v. Bland , 369 U.S.
663, 666 (1962). One type of preemption, known as field preemption, occurs
where states seek to regulate in a field that Congress “ has determined must
24
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs