2:25-cv-575-APG-BNW MOTION HEARING - ROUGH DRAFT - DO NOT CITE!!!
78 MR. HAVEMANN: I take that point and I take the
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
clarification. That is clarification from counsel. The legal theory that they are pressing here is much broader than counsel indicates. And with respect to political events, you know, the argument that the CFTC made in the District Court in D.C. and has made before the D.C. Circuit is precisely this argument, that they have authority to regulate political event contracts because in some States betting on political events is unlawful, and that is the argument that the District Court in D.C. rejected. So again you have a conflict between what Federal law permits as determined by final judgment of a Federal District Court in Washington D.C. and what they are saying the State has authority to do. That would present another direct conflict. THE COURT: The D.C. Circuit -- obviously, we're waiting -- your client is waiting for a decision from the D.C. Circuit. That case only involves election contracts, correct? MR. HAVEMANN: That case only involves -- is a challenge to the election contracts, not a challenge to sport event contracts, that's correct. THE COURT: So in the event the D.C. Circuit says, we agree with the CFTC and overturn the District Court and we're not going to allow election-type contracts, I presume it's your client's intent to continue going forward on sports
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