2:25-cv-575-APG-BNW MOTION HEARING - ROUGH DRAFT - DO NOT CITE!!!
76 And so that -- and, you know, one of the respects in
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
which -- this is in the Arizona case, this is in the 9th Circuit's Valle Del Sol case -- one of the ways that conflict preemption can arise is if Congress has left discretion to a particular Federal decisionmaker and a State imposes penalties that interfere with the exercise of that discretion, and that is exactly what we have here. Congress gave discretion to the CFTC to make a public interest determination about whether certain types of event contracts comport with the public interest. And the CFTC, by not acting on these contracts, made that public policy decision, and it is not up to the States to interfere because they disagree with the CFTC's public policy judgments on that question. That is a question that Congress wanted the CFTC to answer, and it did. I also want to emphasize, Ms. Whelan referred to NRS 463.0193, which is the provision relating to sports pools, and she noted that sports pools under Nevada law mean the business of accepting wagers on sporting events or other events by a system or method of wagering. And she indicated the State's belief that, you know, the sporting event contracts were sporting events and that political events were other events . And if that's true and if the State's position is actually that other events encompass any other event, even not related to sports, then their argument about gaming and sportsbooks is
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