Case 1:25-cv-02152-ESK-MJS Document 15 Filed 04/18/25 Page 41 of 51 PageID: 162
trade does not lead to the conclusion that the actions of his office would impede the CFTC or interfere with the execution of the mandate of the CEA to regulate commodity futures trading”). The mere overlap of New Jersey’s licensure re- quirements with the CFTC’s regulation of designated contract markets does not undermine the CFTC’s regulation. See In re Volkswagen , 959 F.3d at 1213 (ex- plaining “the Court does not infer Congress intended to preempt state enact- ments merely because they overlap with a federal act”). More broadly, companies are subject to simultaneous state and federal regulation all the time. Corporations across the country routinely have to com- ply with, for example, state and federal antitrust laws, securities laws, drug-la- beling laws, consumer-protection laws, and many others. See, e.g. , Wyeth , 555 U.S. at 581 (drug labeling); Cantor v. Detroit Edison Co. , 428 U.S. 579, 579 (1976) (antitrust); Davidson v. Sprout Foods, Inc. , 106 F.4th 842, 852 (9th Cir. 2024) (food labeling); Green , 245 F.3d at 227 (securities); Spectrum Ne., LLC v. Frey , 22 F.4th 287, 301 (1st Cir. 2022) (consumer protection). The entire point of the presump- tion against preemption is that States are the primary regulators of health and safety. See supra 13–14. So the constitutional default is that companies like Kalshi will necessarily have to navigate interlocking state and federal laws. It makes no difference that New Jersey outright prohibits a small subset of sports wagers—college sporting events involving New Jersey colleges or taking place in New Jersey—within the State. Contra PI Br. 20. The fact that New Jer- sey provides stronger protection against certain sports wagers does not stand as an obstacle to the CEA’s weaker protection against event contracts involving the
31
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs