2:25-cv-575-APG-BNW MOTION HEARING - ROUGH DRAFT - DO NOT CITE!!!
20 For instance, regulations that say, just like the
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Federal law, we need to see disclosures, we need to see enforcement, we're going to look at cheats and things like that? MR. HAVEMANN: Yeah. THE COURT: Or is that preempted completely, too? MR. HAVEMANN: So the answer is it's preempted completely, and that derives from the language of the statute. It derives from that exclusive jurisdiction provision. THE COURT: But it's not a conflict; it's a complement. It's a complementary law. MR. HAVEMANN: Right. But, of course, there are two types of preemption at issue here. One is field preemption which preempts the field. It even preempts, you know, State regulation that is perceived to be complementary. And then there is conflict preemption which deals with actual conflicts. So with respect to field preemption, it would be preempted even if it were correct that State law is complementary. With conflict preemption, it is true that as a matter of -- as a theoretical matter, complementary State laws are not conflicted, but the problem here is that the scheme to which Nevada is threatening to subject Kalshi is not, in fact, complementary. Even if there are particular provisions that one could look at and say, well, I sort of think that's the
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