Case: 25-7831, 03/10/2026, DktEntry: 81.1, Page 34 of 43
IV. The CFTC lacks the States’ experience in regulating gambling. A. As a corollary to the above clear-statement rules, Congress is “es- pecially unlikely” to delegate broad power to a federal agency that “has no expertise” crafting “policy” on a given subject. King , 576 U.S. at 486. That makes preemption especially unlikely here, given the stark differ- ence in experience between the States and the CFTC. Begin with the States. As the CFTC itself has previously conceded, the States have “particular expertise” addressing the “risks and concerns associated with gambling,” including sports betting. 89 Fed. Reg. at 48982–83. The States confront these risks in many ways. To name a few, they (1) impose front-end screening to ensure that those facilitating gambling are suitable for the task, (2) set age limits to protect those most vulnerable to gambling addiction, (3) limit who may place bets to protect the integrity of sporting events, and (4) facilitate voluntary exclusion lists to assist problem gamblers. See State-Amicus Br.25–27, 32–33 (discuss- ing the approaches of New Jersey and Ohio). The CFTC has no history of offering similar protections. By its own admission, the CFTC lacks “specialized experience appropriate to over- see” gambling. 89 Fed. Reg. at 48983. Its regulations “are focused on
28
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs