2:25-cv-575-APG-BNW MOTION HEARING - ROUGH DRAFT - DO NOT CITE!!!
27 have a big problem there because you'd just be sort of circumventing the plain language of the statute by saying, well, we're -- you know, I don't even know -- exactly know how they would do it because in order to regulate the market participants, I would think that you would have to regulate the exchange. But then you could have a fight about -- I mean, I can imagine arguments on both sides of that question -- THE COURT: Sure. MR. HAVEMANN: -- but that is very different from what, you know, the Board sent a cease and desist letter to our client threatening criminal and civil liability to -- THE COURT: Let me stop you. I agree. I'm getting far afield here, but I'm trying to sort of understand the parameters of the argument you're making sort of with pushing the envelope on certain examples to test this exclusive jurisdiction argument. That's why I'm sort of playing around with it a little bit. MR. HAVEMANN: Sure. And maybe one, if I may, one helpful articulation of the standard that we think applies comes from the 7th Circuit, which addressed an argument I think much like the one that the Board is making here. And what the 7th Circuit said in addressing the very same statutory language we have here is, if a State law would directly affect trading on or the operation of a futures market, it is preempted. And that's from the American Agriculture Movement case from 1992.
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