2:25-cv-575-APG-BNW MOTION HEARING - ROUGH DRAFT - DO NOT CITE!!!
19 to make sure that their rules are complied with. And that's certainly true of Kalshi. And that's why it's, frankly, quite difficult to obtain designation as a contract market. It is a very, very -- it is a comprehensive and difficult-to-meet statutory scheme, and that's why it is so important to Kalshi that it maintain its designation under the CEA. And one of the things we note is, you know, part of our worry in this case is that if, you know, Nevada, let alone not just Nevada but many other States, can exercise authority over Kalshi and say, well, you know, we think that you're really a sportsbook and, therefore, we think you have to cease your operations in the state, that is really in conflict with core principles to which Kalshi is subject. THE COURT: I get that. I get that. On that point, though, you say in your reply at Page 7 that preemption would simply prohibit Nevada from subjecting Kalshi to State laws that conflict with Federal law. But what about State laws that are complementary to the CEA? For instance, as we just talked about, the Nevada Gaming Control Board has rules and regulations to catch point shaving. They have investigators and things like that to catch cheats, which certainly furthers the purposes of the CEA and furthers the purposes that Kalshi would like to uphold. So is there room in the CEA and this regulatory scheme for Nevada gaming laws that complement CEA's purposes?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Judy K. Moore, RMR, CRR
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs