3. The self-certification provisions of the CEA and the CFTC’s implementing regulations are invalid, and therefore Kalshi’s sports event contracts offered pursuant thereto are invalid The structure of the CEA’s provisions allowing for contract self-certification is invalid, rendering both its implementing regulations allowing for self- certification—and, importantly here, the contracts issued pursuant to those regulations—invalid. The statutory and regulatory framework governing the listing of new event contracts delegates to private entities a sweeping authority to implement binding regulatory decisions without meaningful federal oversight. This violates the nondelegation doctrine, which guards precisely the type of unchecked, privately exercised regulatory power that Kalshi is claiming to transform the highly regulated sports betting market. The CEA establishes a self-certification mechanism that permits registered entities to introduce new financial instruments, including event contracts, without prior regulatory approval. The self-certification regulatory structure favors self- certification—self-certified contracts may become active with only one business day notice. See 17 C.F.R. § 40.2(a)(2). The CFTC may stay such self- certifications only upon finding “novel or complex issues that require additional time to analyze, an inadequate explanation by the submitting registered entity, or a potential inconsistency with this chapter.” 7 U.S.C. § 7a-2(c)(2). This scheme permits private entities, such as Kalshi, to exercise extraordinary sovereign
16
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs