2:25-cv-575-APG-BNW MOTION HEARING - ROUGH DRAFT - DO NOT CITE!!!
50
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
that is traditionally regulated by the States and it's something that wasn't within the contemplation of Congress at the time. And as you know, Chevron deference has fallen by the wayside with the Loper Bright opinion, and so this Court is the body that has to interpret the statute and determine what the statute means. And so there's no -- there's really no deference to CFTC. THE COURT: So the statute that I just read said that the Commission may determine that such contracts are contrary to the public interest if they involve gaming, we talked about, or sub i, any activity that's unlawful under any Federal or State law, which suggests that they could look to Nevada law and say, we don't allow 18-year-olds to gamble on sports betting. But if the CFTC looks at that under its authority and says it's not contrary to the public interest, we're allowing it, isn't that a delegation by Congress to the CFTC to make that determination and therefore takes it away? Because, otherwise, if Nevada tries to say, no, you can't do that, now we've got a conflict. MS. WHELAN: Sure. And that's a conflict preemption question that, you know, would make my job here today a little more difficult if -- THE COURT: That's where we're at. I mean, that's exactly where we're at, because although the CFTC didn't say,
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