Case: 25-7831, 03/10/2026, DktEntry: 81.1, Page 7 of 43
STATEMENT OF AMICI INTEREST Amici consist of New Jersey, Ohio, 37 other States, and the District of Columbia (“the amici States”). They are interested in this case because it concerns an overbroad preemption theory that threatens the States’ longstanding ability to protect their citizens. The amici States also re- spond to a recent brief from the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”). In that brief, the CFTC wrongly argues that federal law dis- places the States’ ability to regulate sports betting. The amici States submit this brief under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 29(a)(2). INTRODUCTION This brief is best read as a sequel. The original was filed in a related case, involving Nevada’s dispute with Kalshi. See State-Amicus Br., KalshiEX LLC v. Assad, et al. , No. 25-7516 (9th Cir.), DktEntry 48.1 (“State-Amicus Br.”). There, thirty-nine States—along with the District of Columbia—explained why they may regulate online sports betting, re- gardless of whether prediction markets package such betting as so-called “events contracts.” The States relatedly explained why preemption the- ories to the contrary are far-fetched. In a nutshell, here is the States’ position. Prediction-market litigants in this case and others argue that somewhere buried within subsections
1
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs