Case: 25-7831, 03/10/2026, DktEntry: 81.1, Page 18 of 43
unheralded power representing a transformative expansion in its regu- latory authority.” Id. at 724 (alterations accepted, quotation omitted). This case fits that description. The CFTC claims to have discovered within statutory provisions about financial derivatives—all of which have been in place for fifteen years or longer—“an unheralded power” to regulate sports betting for the entire country. See id. (quotation omitted). Such an assertion of federal power requires “clear congressional author- ization.” See id. (quotation omitted). And the CFTC identifies none. III. The CFTC’s sudden claim of exclusive authority over sports bet- ting also contravenes the federalism canon. As that canon teaches, courts expect Congress to speak clearly if it intends to shift the States’ historic powers to the federal government. Bond , 572 U.S. at 857–59. And the regulation of gambling falls within the States’ traditional police powers. Ah Sin v. Wittman , 198 U.S. 500, 505–06 (1905). The States have there- fore long regulated gambling, including sports betting. The Court should not upset this traditional balance absent a clear congressional directive. The CFTC’s position, however, would do just that. IV. The CFTC’s lack of expertise as to sports betting makes preemp- tion even more implausible. Congress is “especially unlikely,” the
12
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs