Case: 25-7516, 01/23/2026, DktEntry: 33.1, Page 65 of 110
Kalshi has essentially two responses. First, it cites (Br. 28) decisions
where “exclusive jurisdiction” supposedly means preemption. But none of
those decisions involved a federal statute that conferred “exclusive jurisdic-
tion” on a federal agency. Two were about statutes that conferred “original
and exclusive jurisdiction” on courts over particular causes of action, 4 and
the other three involved statutes that the courts interpreted to have field-
preemptive effect because they contained comprehensive regulatory
schemes; the statutes themselves did not contain “exclusive jurisdiction”
language. 5 Statutes that do use “exclusive jurisdiction” confirm that the
term does not broadly preempt state law, particularly when there is a sep-
arate express-preemption provision. E.g. , 30 U.S.C. § 1254(a)(3) (providing
that the Secretary of the Interior has “exclusive jurisdiction” over surface
coal mining when he or she adopts a federal plan for a State); id. § 1254(g)
(separately providing that the federal plan “shall preempt[] and super-
sede[]” state regulation).
4 See Mississippi v. Louisiana , 506 U.S. 73, 77-78 (1992) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1251(a)); Transcon. Gas Pipe Line Co. v. Pa. Envy Hearing Bd. , 108 F.4th 144, 151-152 (3d Cir. 2024) (citing 15 U.S.C. § 717r(d)(1)). 5 See Hughes v. Talen Energy Mktg., LLC , 578 U.S. 150, 163 (2016) (Fed- eral Power Act); Duke Energy Trading & Mktg., L.L.C. v. Davis , 267 F.3d 1042, 1057 (9th Cir. 2001) (same); Richardson v. Kruchko & Fries , 966 F.2d 153, 158 (4th Cir. 1992) (National Labor Relations Act).
47
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs