USCA4 Appeal: 25-1892
Doc: 16
Filed: 10/15/2025
Pg: 73 of 97
cherry-picked aspects of Maryland laws that do not conflict with those
objectives without addressing the overwhelming evidence that Congress sought to prevent state regulation of DCMs. The Supreme Court in Arizona
rejected a similar contention where a state claimed that a statute allowing
the arrest of removable immigrants “ has the same aim as federal law. ” 567
U.S. at 402. The Court explained that “[p] ermitting the State to impose its
own penalties ” for matters entrusted to a federal agency “ would conflict with the careful framework Congress adopted. ” Id. The conflict is far clearer here than in Arizona . Allowing 50 different
states to ban contracts the CFTC has allowed would “frustrate Congress’
intent to bring the markets under a uniform set of regulations, ” flout
Congress’s judgment that “a contract market could not operate efficiently ” if
subject to “ varying and potentially contradictory legal standards, ” and “lead to total chaos.” Am. Agric. , 977 F.2d at 1156 (quotation omitted). The district court contended with none of this. Third, the district court picked out one of Kalshi’s cited cases— Crosby — and rejected conflict preemption on the ground that Congress’s purpose of subjecting DCMs to uniform regulation was not as substantial a “ federal interest ” as the national-security interests in Crosby . JA173-174.
Such judicial weighing of legislative purposes has no place in a preemption
58
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs