2:25-cv-575-APG-BNW MOTION HEARING - ROUGH DRAFT - DO NOT CITE!!!
77 much, much, much broader than their briefing suggests because, really, what they're saying is that they have authority to regulate all event contracts, even though there is a comprehensive regulatory scheme, detailed statute after detailed statute, that specifies exactly how Congress wanted the CFTC to regulate event contracts. And if the State is -- if Ms. Whelan is correct that this State law is not preempted, that would really be a radical, radical change from the way that Congress thought that event contracts should be regulated, and it has always been understood that these can be regulated -- that these are regulated by the CFTC, not 51 different States. And so that is a much, much, much broader argument than I think we appreciated. And I do want to emphasize that point because I think that that gets to, really, the scope of what they are claiming the State has authority to do here. THE COURT: Well, she did point out that Nevada has a specific statute that outlaws betting on elections, not just necessarily other events . Am I correct on that, Ms. Whelan? MS. WHELAN: Yes, Your Honor. And to be clear, the NGCB is not and has never tried to take the position that we're going to prevent all contracts on Kalshi's exchanges. We are limiting it to sports-related and election-related. THE COURT: That was my understanding as well, but I appreciate the clarification.
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