Case: 25-1922 Document: 83 Page: 28 Date Filed: 09/24/2025
Page 27
1
MR. HAVEMANN: Sure. So I'll take each in turn.
2
JUDGE CHAGARES: Okay.
3
MR. HAVEMANN: As to IGRA, the Indian Gaming
4 Regulatory Act --
5
JUDGE CHAGARES: Right.
6
MR. HAVEMANN: -- many of the other statutes they
7 refer to, none of those statutes -- they do broadly turn on
8 state law, but none of them suggest that states have the
9 authority to regulate gaming, in the specific application here,
10 which is in the application of trading on designated contract
11 markets, and they don't define, bet or wager --
12
JUDGE CHAGARES: They refer to bet or wager, right?
13 Yes.
14
MR. HAVEMANN: They refer, but they don't define.
15
JUDGE CHAGARES: Okay.
16
MR. HAVEMANN: The one statute, Chief Judge Chagares,
17 that does define, bet, or wager, is the UIGEA, which is the
18 second statute you referred to, and that statute expressly
19 carves out from the definition of bet or wager, a trade that
20 happens on a federally designated contract market, because, of
21 course, Congress has always understood that if it's on a
22 designated contract market since 1974, it's not up to states to
23 regulate it. It's up to the CFTC to regulate it, and as
24 defendants themselves note, the UIGEA was enacted just four
25 years before Dodd-Frank.
Veritext Legal Solutions 215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs