2:25-cv-575-APG-BNW MOTION HEARING - ROUGH DRAFT - DO NOT CITE!!!
29 MR. HAVEMANN: So that's certainly not our argument
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
and that's not how Courts have interpreted the 7th Circuit's language, and I think it's a question of attenuation. So, you know, if what you're saying is there's a, you know, act on the part of a third-party that affects a third-party that affects the trading on a DCM, or designated contract market, maybe that's sufficiently attenuated from a State law that affects the designated contract market itself that a Court would say, it's not direct -- it does not directly regulate the DCM and, therefore, it's subject to regulation by a State, but I don't think the Court needs to touch any example like that to rule in our favor in this case because we are, I think, in the heartland of what the 7th Circuit's language clearly contemplates. And I would add, it's not just the 7th Circuit's language; it's the D.C. Circuit's language, it's Judge Friendly's language in the 2nd Circuit -- THE COURT: Yeah, I read your brief. MR. HAVEMANN: -- it's what the CFTC said in its D.C. Circuit brief just a few months ago about how State laws are preempted here, so -- THE COURT: But, again, you know, what's the breadth of that preemption? If you take that language on its face that you just read to me, the fact that Nevada gaming laws allow sportsbooks to operate, that's in direct competition with your
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