2:25-cv-575-APG-BNW MOTION HEARING - ROUGH DRAFT - DO NOT CITE!!!
73 THE COURT: Thank you. Ms. Whelan raised the issue
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
at the end here that, in a sense, CFTC can say, we're going to allow 18-year-olds to engage in sports betting and that's in direct violation of several States' public policy; or, more importantly, to your client's, I guess, taking it out of the sports betting, Nevada has a law that says, for instance -- or some States may say, if you're under the age of 21, you can't legally enter into contracts, but your contracts allow 18-year-olds, so there's a conflict directly with the public policy of the State. Is the answer "Too bad, so sad, that's what the CFTC says and that's the way it is"? MR. HAVEMANN: The answer is, there is a conflict, and when there is a conflict between State law and Federal law, under the Supremacy Clause, Federal law wins out. So the CFTC authorizes positions to be placed by adults, so people 18 and over. And if a particular State says, no, I want it to be 21 or 25 or 30, that is a conflict with the CFTC's scheme, and that is exactly what Congress sought to avoid when it subjected designated contract markets to the exclusive jurisdiction of the CFTC. It was designed to avoid a patchwork of regulation where contracts that were permissible in one State are impermissible in another State, different ages, different conflicting State laws that would make it impossible for these exchanges to operate a nationwide exchange, which is what
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