Case: 25-1922 Document: 83 Page: 19 Date Filed: 09/24/2025
Page 18
1
Now, they -- I -- I think I want to emphasize what I
2 understand to be the breadth of defendant's arguments here,
3 because, of course, you know, the context in which we are here
4 is with respect to sports event contracts, but the argument
5 that they make in their brief is quite a bit broader than that.
6 Their view is that they get to regulate anything they deem to
7 be gaming, even if/or gambling, even if it happens on a
8 designated contract market, and let's just look to how New
9 Jersey defines gambling. New Jersey defines gambling to mean
10 staking, or risking something of value upon the outcome of a
11 future contingent event.
12
So if they are right that they can regulate anything
13 they understand to be gaming, even if it happens on a DCM, even
14 if it happens on a federally regulated, subject to the
15 exclusive jurisdiction of the CFTC, then that certainly means
16 they can regulate every event contract, contrary to the clear
17 intent of Congress and Dodd-Frank to put event contracts within
18 the jurisdiction of the CFTC, and it may well mean they could
19 regulate every futures contract, because, of course, futures
20 can be understood to be placing a thing of value on a future
21 event. The rise of price in gold, the rise in price in an
22 underlying commodity.
23
And if that sounds familiar to the Court, it's because
24 states tried to do this. They tried to do this between 100 and
25 150 years ago, when many states developed their gambling
Veritext Legal Solutions 215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs