Case 1:25-cv-02152-ESK-MJS Document 15 Filed 04/18/25 Page 38 of 51 PageID: 159
assets”; and “to promote responsible innovation and fair competition among boards of trade, other markets and market participants.” Id. The requirements of the New Jersey Sports Wagering Act further —rather than impede—these purposes. For instance, to ensure sufficient oversight of sports wagering in the State, the Act requires that a sports-pool operator must partner with a casino or racetrack that holds a sports wagering license. N.J. Stat. Ann. § 5:12A-11(a). And operators must comply with the security requirements for internet gaming. Id. ; N.J. Stat. Ann. § 5:12-95.22. An operator also must provide documentation to the Division reflecting “its financial background and resources, including cash reserves, that are sufficient to demonstrate that it has the financial stability, integrity, and responsibility to operate a sports pool or online sports pool.” Id. § 5:12A-13(a). And a sports-pool operator must “main- tain a cash reserve of an amount necessary to ensure the ability to cover” sport pool wagers. N.J. Admin. Code § 13:69N-1.2(d). These requirements of the Sports Wagering Act are wholly consistent with Congress’s purpose in enacting the CEA because they too operate to “ensure the financial integrity of all transactions” and “to protect all market participants from fraudulent or other abusive sales practices and misuses of customer assets.” 7 U.S.C. § 5(b). In such circumstances, there can be no conflict preemption. See CTS Corp. v. Dynamics Corp. of Am. , 481 U.S. 69, 82 (1987) (holding state law not preempted because it “furthers a basic purpose” of the federal statute); Green v. Fund Asset Mgmt., L.P. , 245 F.3d 214, 226–28 (3d Cir. 2001) (finding state law did not stand as an obstacle to federal securities law where state law furthered
28
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs