USCA4 Appeal: 25-1892
Doc: 16
Filed: 10/15/2025
Pg: 40 of 97
be regulated by its exclusive governance .” Arizona v. United States , 567 U.S.
387, 399 (2012). State laws are also preempted where they conflict with
federal law, including when compliance with both is an “impossib ility ” or state law stands as an “obstacle” to Congress’ s objectives. Id. (quotations
omitted). Overwhelming evidence demonstrates that Maryland gambling
laws are both field preempted and conflict preempted as applied to Kalshi. A. Maryland’s Gambling Laws Are Field Preempted As Applied To Kalshi. The CEA leaves no room for state regulation of trading on DCMs. “Evidence of pre -emptive purpose is sought in the text and structure of the statute at issue.” CSX Transp., Inc. v. Easterwood , 507 U.S. 658, 664 (1993).
Here, every indicator of Congressional intent confirms that the CEA
preempts the field of regulating trading on DCMs — both by its express text
and by setting out a comprehensive scheme that displaces state regulation. See Crosby , 530 U.S. at 372 n.6 ( “‘ field ’ preemption may fall into any of the
categories of express, implied, or conflict preemption”).
1. “[I]n the first instance,” this Court must “focus on the plain wording of” the CEA. CSX Transp. , 507 U.S. at 664. Section 2(a) grants the CFTC “ exclusive jurisdiction ” over all “transactions involving swaps” or “ future
delivery” contracts that are “traded or executed on a contract market
designated” by the CFTC. 7 U.S.C. § 2(a)(1)(A) (emphasis added). The “plain
25
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs