USCA4 Appeal: 25-1892
Doc: 16
Filed: 10/15/2025
Pg: 51 of 97
goal of uniformity that Congress sought to implement. ” Ingersoll-Rand Co. v. McClendon , 498 U.S. 133, 142 (1990); see Retail Indus. Leaders Ass’n v. Fielder , 475 F.3d 180, 183, 197 (4th Cir. 2007) (finding conflict preemption where state regulation would interfere with statutory purpose of permitting “uniform nationwide administration” of employee plans); Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Pettit , 164 F.3d 857, 862 (4th Cir. 1998) (finding conflict preemption where Congress sought to apply “one body of national, uniform law” ); In re Sewell , 690 F.2d 403, 407 (4th Cir. 1982) ( “to allow the States to control
conduct which is the subject of national regulation would create potential
frustration of national purposes” (quotation omitted)). This case is no
different.
Defendants forthrightly — if inadvertently — conceded the conflict
below, noting in a sworn affidavit that the CFTC “oversees” Kalshi “at the federal level” but that “this federal oversight conflicts with state laws that govern gambling and sports betting .” JA89-90 (emphasis added). That concession should have ended this case. Where state law and federal law conflict, state law “must yield”— not the other way around. Free , 369 U.S. at
666.
2. Compliance with both federal and Maryland law is outright
impossible for Kalshi. Maryland law would require Kalshi to ensure that all
36
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs