Case: 25-1922 Document: 83 Page: 22 Date Filed: 09/24/2025
Page 21
1 of a futures market is preempted. So whether you think
2 about that in terms of conflict preemption or whether you
3 think about it in terms of field preemption, we think that
4 you sort of get to the same result, and there are a bunch
5 of specific respects in which we think that there is a
6 conflict that we'd be happy to go into.
7
Just -- I mean, I think that my colleague noted at the
8 end of his argument that all Kalshi needs to do is get a
9 license in New Jersey. I want to be very clear that it would
10 be impossible for Kalshi to get license in New Jersey, because
11 one of the things that New Jersey requires for people to get a
12 license is to accept what they call bets. So if we're in a
13 world where we're subject to state regulation, if we're
14 offering bets, then we have to accept bets only from people in
15 the State of New Jersey.
16
And how is a nationwide exchange subject to impartial
17 access requirements imposed by the CFTC, upon which our CFTC
18 designation depends. How could we accept bets only from people
19 within New Jersey? And again, it's not just New Jersey. So if
20 New Jersey is right about whether their state licensing regime
21 can apply here, then you have 49 other states and the District
22 of Columbia that can impose overlapping, conflicting, redundant
23 requirements on a DCM, and if you look to what Congress did in
24 1974, this is exactly the result that Congress wanted to avoid
25 when it subjected these exchanges to the exclusive jurisdiction
Veritext Legal Solutions 215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs