Case: 25-7831, 03/10/2026, DktEntry: 81.1, Page 36 of 43
plans to do) to confront gambling problems stemming from sports betting on prediction markets. Rather than confronting these issues, the CFTC hides behind the notion that this is all some brand new “financial inno- vation.” See CFTC Br.17. That asks the Court to ignore reality. Risking money on the “final score of a sporting event,” CFTC Br.15, is sports bet- ting, no matter how it is dressed up. See Dustin Gouker, Ten Times Kalshi Said People Could Bet On Things , Event Horizon. The States have experience regulating such activity; the CFTC has none. One final argument warrants a response. The CFTC’s briefing prom- ises a parade of horribles if the States retain their traditional power. See CFTC Br.28–29. But the CFTC’s vague consequentialism shows surpris- ingly little regard for this country’s first principles. The CFTC decries the fact that prediction markets offering sports betting are being subject to “a patchwork of state laws and regulations.” CFTC Br.7. That is a strange complaint since, in our federalist system, the possibility that States will make different choices is a feature, not a bug. Under this country’s constitutional structure, the States are supposed to act “as laboratories” of democracy, “devising solutions” to new and dif- ficult problems. Ariz. State Legis. v. Ariz. Indep. Redistricting Comm’n ,
30
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs