Case: 25-1922 Document: 83 Page: 31 Date Filed: 09/24/2025
Page 30
1 they would cover with their definition.
2
And second, on the -- on the swap point, I again heard
3 no answer to there's a text here. Congress could have been
4 clearer, either way. They could have said swaps are clearly
5 sports bets are in or sports bets are out, but they didn't say
6 that, and so we have to use the canons of statutory
7 construction to figure out what the text means. No answer to
8 the three clear statement rules that clearly point in our favor
9 on this: major questions, not altering the balance, and implied
10 repeal, and I would point that out for Your Honors.
11
On preemption -- and I see my time is running short.
12 On exclusive jurisdiction, we point this out in our brief, but
13 exclusive jurisdiction was meant to separate the jurisdiction
14 of the federal agencies. It wanted to give exclusive
15 jurisdiction to the CFTC, and there's nothing that there's --
16 if you do an actual field preemption analysis, there's no --
17
JUDGE CHAGARES: Okay. We'll give you a little more
18 time.
19
MR. EHRLICH: Okay.
20
JUDGE CHAGARES: It's okay. Go ahead.
21
MR. EHRLICH: Okay. Thank you, Your Honor.
22
So I'll slow down a little bit then.
23
JUDGE CHAGARES: Okay.
24
MR. EHRLICH: Exclusive jurisdiction was meant to
25 separate out the jurisdiction from the CFTC and other federal
Veritext Legal Solutions 215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs