2:25-cv-575-APG-BNW MOTION HEARING - ROUGH DRAFT - DO NOT CITE!!!
31 that, you know, the Court can leave those hard questions to the side about where exactly the line is with respect to preemption because I think we are in the heartland of it. And particularly -- I mean, I know the Court read our brief, so I don't want to recapitulate things that we've already said and you already know, but I do want to state for the record, we are here on a TRO and so the question is likelihood of success on the merits. We have clear statutory language. We have all this weight of authority. We have the purpose of the 1974 amendments. We have a conference report. We have all of these indicia of Congressional intent that suggest that Congress did not want States to do exactly what the Gaming Control Board is doing here. And what we are asking this Court to do today is not to rule for us at the end of the day but to prevent the State from subjecting us to irreparable harm in the meantime. And I do want to emphasize that irreparable harm in the meantime. THE COURT: You read my mind. I'm getting there right now. Let's talk about irreparable harm. Why do you need an injunction against enforcement? Can't you just defend when -- and I'll use "when," not "if" -- but when the State of Nevada comes after your client, can't you defend and simply say, these laws are preempted, Nevada Court is going to follow the law, presumably? Why do you need it now ahead of time?
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