USCA4 Appeal: 25-1892
Doc: 16
Filed: 10/15/2025
Pg: 50 of 97
B. Maryland’s Gambling Laws Are Conflict Preempted As Applied To Kalshi. Even if field preemption did not bar Maryland from regulating Kalshi ’s
event contracts, conflict preemption would. In at least three respects,
complying with Maryland law would be “impossible” for Kalshi or pose an “obstacle” to the CEA’s purposes. Crosby , 530 U.S. at 372-373.
1. Maryland’s application of its gambling laws to Kalshi subverts
Congress’s aim of bringing futures markets “under a uniform set of regulations.” Am. Agric. , 977 F.2d at 1156. Congress worried that states “might step in to regulate the futures markets themselves.” Id. State
regulation brings the specter of “varying and potentially contradictory legal
standards” which would not only hamper DCM operations, but potentially prevent them from operating “at all.” Id. The Seventh Circuit has
accordingly held that “[w]hen application of state law would directly affect
trading on or the operation of a [DCM] , it would stand ‘as an obstacle to the
accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress,’ and hence is preempted.” Id. at 1156-57 (citation omitted).
Here, Maryland attempts to directly regulate trading on Kalshi —
exactly the result Congress in 1974 sought to avoid. This Court and the
Supreme Court have easily found state law to conflict with federal law in
comparable cases where permitting state regulation was “at odds with the
35
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs