2:25-cv-575-APG-BNW MOTION HEARING - ROUGH DRAFT - DO NOT CITE!!!
75 contracts of sale traded on a DCM. That's the language of the statute. I did not hear an articulation of how what the Board is attempting to do in this case does not squarely fall within the category of transactions, agreements, accounts that Federal law places in the authority -- with the authority of the CFTC. I also heard Ms. Whelan say -- I think that this is a direct quote. I think I got it right. "It is hard to see how sports betting was contemplated by Congress," and that was a reason why she thought there might be some room for State law to co-exist with Federal law. I would just point Your Honor to the special rule which we outlined in our brief and which you can find at 7 section -- 7 U.S.C. Section 7a-2, and that is a special rule with respect to event contracts and it says -- event contracts based on an occurrence or contingency, so exactly what we're talking about here, and one of the categories of cases that Congress said the CFTC can take a look at for compliance with the public interest is gaming. So it is not correct that Congress didn't contemplate this. Congress contemplated it, and the answer that Congress gave was not to let 51 different States regulate this. It was to recognize that there are particular public policy concerns with respect to gaming contracts and allow the CFTC to make a decision based on its evaluation of the public interest and not subject these exchanges to the conflicting laws of 51 different States.
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