2:25-cv-575-APG-BNW MOTION HEARING - ROUGH DRAFT - DO NOT CITE!!!
47 18-year-olds in Nevada enter into these contracts but not any other contract in Nevada? It's a similar situation to that hypothetical where we have, in the state of Nevada, 21 is our age to gamble, to place bets, to place wagers, but 18 is the contracting age. And so you have 18, 19, and 20-year-olds in Nevada who are able to place bets, for lack of a better term, on Kalshi's exchange without regulation, without dispute resolution mechanisms and things of that nature. THE COURT: I get the argument and I get the concern wholly and the purposes behind the Nevada gaming rules, and the purposes that the Gaming Control Board and Gaming Commission are trying to enforce are good ones, but I'm getting hung up on the express language of the statute that says the exclusive jurisdiction is vested in the CFTC. And I'm charged with following the express language of statutes unless they don't apply. And that's what I'm trying to figure out is, how does the exclusive jurisdiction not apply here when it says, over swaps, over commodities? It seems to give the CFTC jurisdiction to decide, is this a swap? And if it's a -- comes in under a regulated market participant, that's the way it works. MS. WHELAN: Well, I think Kalshi itself in its motion mentioned that, you know, in field preemption, we really look at the intent of Congress. So the CEA was first passed in
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