2:25-cv-575-APG-BNW MOTION HEARING - ROUGH DRAFT - DO NOT CITE!!!
33 preempted, presumably there is an entity that is violating the State law, and the question is, they're entitled -- the State law does not operate against them because Federal law operates on them, and what Kalshi is doing is entirely permissible under Federal law. And so it's not, you know, a self-inflicted injury because, you know, Kalshi, just like the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, just like every other designated contract market, had every reason to look at the statutory scheme that applied to them and think, we are entitled to offer these contracts as long as, you know, the CFTC says we are. THE COURT: And it could have sought pre-approval from the CFTC under the statutes and avoided significant questions here. It can submit this for pre-approval, and it didn't. MR. HAVEMANN: It can, but it does not have to. And the key -- but, you know, Your Honor referenced the political event contracts. I mean, the key point I would emphasize to Your Honor is that Kalshi prevailed. So, you know, talking about conflict preemption -- THE COURT: In one Court. MR. HAVEMANN: -- we have a judgment from the Federal Court that says these contracts are permissible under Federal law. THE COURT: And the CFTC's challenging that. MR. HAVEMANN: And the CFTC is challenging that, but
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