Case: 25-1922 Document: 73 Page: 8
Date Filed: 08/14/2025
into play. For another, even assuming that “swap” covers sports-related contracts, there is no dispute that the Act can preempt state laws as ap- plied to CFTC-regulated markets. But that is a product of conflict preemption, not field preemption. So only state laws that contradict or impede the Act are preempted; complementary state laws are allowed. And because New Jersey’s gambling laws complement federal law, there is no preemption. In the end, no matter how much Kalshi likens itself to the Chicago Mercantile Exchange or other derivatives markets, it is no different than any other sportsbook or gambling house. This Court should therefore deny its request for federal immunity and allow the States to govern Kalshi like every other sports pool. The Court should reverse. ARGUMENT Kalshi’s event contracts—which are based on the outcome of sport- ing events—are not “swaps” within the CFTC’s “exclusive jurisdiction.” Even if they were, the Act does not preempt New Jersey’s gambling laws. I. Kalshi’s Event Contracts Do Not Fall Within The Act. The Act defines a “swap” as “any agreement, contract, or transac- tion” that “provides for any purchase, sale, payment, or delivery” that “is dependent on the occurrence, nonoccurrence, or the extent of the occur- rence of an event or contingency associated with a potential financial, economic, or commercial consequence.” 7 U.S.C. § 1a(47)(A)(ii). As the State explained, the historical backdrop of federal gambling laws and the Act’s text and structure show that Congress did not intend to effect a
2
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs