Case: 25-1922 Document: 83 Page: 27 Date Filed: 09/24/2025
Page 26
1 of makes sense?
2
MR. HAVEMANN: I certainly understand their argument,
3 but again, the key difference is we're not preventing them from
4 regulating state sportsbooks. What we're preventing them from
5 regulating is conduct that states have not, since 1974,
6 regulated, which is trades on a DCM, and there's lots of other
7 things that a state may well view as being gambling within the
8 broad definition of gambling that many states, including New
9 Jersey, have, that I don't think -- I do not believe it's
10 subject to reasonable dispute, that even though a state may
11 think it falls within their gambling statute, if it's on the
12 DCM, it's off limits for the state, and the same thing is true
13 here.
14
And we think that that is a sensible result, and it's
15 a result that's commanded by the text of the CEA, by the
16 history of the CEA, by the, you know, deliberation that went
17 into the decision to grant the commodity -- the CFTC, exclusive
18 jurisdiction over trading on designated contract markets while
19 leaving it up to the states.
20
JUDGE CHAGARES: Your friend mentioned a couple of
21 other congressional acts. I think one was -- he didn't say it
22 specifically, but it was in the brief, Indian Gaming Regulatory
23 Act, and the other one, Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement
24 Act and that, that supported his position. Maybe you could
25 just reply to that?
Veritext Legal Solutions 215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs