Case: 25-7187, 02/17/2026, DktEntry: 37.2, Page 37 of 41
mandate to provide impartial national access. As for obstacle preemption, gambling laws often require local licensing, fees, and specific hardware (like localized servers). Applying state-by-state local requirements to national commodity exchanges would create the very “patchwork” that Congress set out to prevent. Nor does the presumption against preemption alter this conclusion. Even accepting arguendo that regulation of gambling is a historic police power of the states, the Court should not apply a presumption against preemption. The entire purpose of the exclusive jurisdictional provision in CEA § 2(a)(1)(A) is to provide national uniformity for derivatives trading and to prevent 50 different states from undermining this national regulatory structure by claiming derivatives markets are subject to state gambling laws. Congress’s “clear and manifest purpose” was indeed to preempt these historic police powers. Altria Grp., Inc. , 555 U.S. at 77 (noting “the assumption that the historic police powers of the States [are] not to be superseded by the Federal Act unless that was the clear and manifest purpose of Congress”) (quoting Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp ., 331 U.S. 218, 230 (1947)). The plain language of the text, underscored by the consistent legislative history to preempt states from applying 50 state requirements on national markets, indicates this “clear and manifest purpose” to preempt state police powers.
27
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs