Case: 25-1922 Document: 83 Page: 20 Date Filed: 09/24/2025
Page 19
1 statutes specifically to target futures trading, which they
2 understood to be gambling.
3
And we cite an important case from the Illinois
4 Supreme Court in our brief, where the Illinois Supreme Court
5 says, you know, dealing in futures to be settled according to
6 the fluctuations of the market is void for contrary to public
7 policy, is a crime, this species of gambling has become
8 emphatically and preeminently the national sin.
9
That's what -- that's how the Supreme Court of
10 Illinois understood futures trading in 1888, and so it is
11 absolutely not correct, as defendants say, to say that Congress
12 wouldn't have had in mind when it granted exclusive
13 jurisdiction to the CFTC over futures trading after
14 experimenting with decades of concurrent state and federal
15 regulation, after recognizing, after holding hearings, after
16 hearing from witnesses, after revising the prior version of the
17 statute to grant exclusive jurisdiction to the CFTC. After one
18 senator noted on the floor, that that allowing states to
19 regulate this themselves would lead to total chaos. They
20 absolutely would have had in mind, would have been front and
21 center in Congress's mind, that one of the things that they
22 were doing when they granted the CFTC jurisdiction was
23 preempting state law in the narrow application --
24
JUDGE PORTER: So you --
25
MR. HAVEMANN: -- of trading on DCMs.
Veritext Legal Solutions 215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs