Case: 25-1922 Document: 83 Page: 15 Date Filed: 09/24/2025
Page 14
1 Again, they shouldn't be trading these on DCMS at all, and so
2 the fact that they're allowed to do it, subject to some
3 restrictions under our law, doesn't create a conflict here, and
4 so for that reason, we would say there's certainly no conflict.
5 I think the parties agree that conflict preemption could apply.
6 I think a lot of the arguments revolve around field preemption.
7 It's just that in this case, in the sports gambling case where
8 Congress has repeatedly --
9
JUDGE CHAGARES: What is a field anyway, if it's field
10 preemption?
11
MR. EHRLICH: Sorry, Your Honor?
12
JUDGE CHAGARES: What is the field?
13
MR. EHRLICH: Well, I think you'd have to ask Kalshi
14 that. I mean, we don't think there is a field. I think they
15 would say all trading on designated contracts markets, which
16 is -- I think we would say clearly not true. I think the
17 Seventh Circuit in the American Agriculture case --
18
JUDGE CHAGARES: Right, right.
19
MR. ERLICH: -- that both parties cite, says not field
20 preemption, so I don't know the answer to that, but that's why
21 we say there's no field preemption.
22
JUDGE CHAGARES: All right. Do you have anything,
23 Judge Porter?
24
JUDGE PORTER: Well, just given the posture of the
25 case on the preliminary injunction on the first prong, you
Veritext Legal Solutions 215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs