Case: 25-7831, 03/10/2026, DktEntry: 81.1, Page 37 of 43
576 U.S. 787, 817 (2015) (quotation omitted). And companies must com- monly account for both state and federal law, including in scenarios in- volving antitrust laws, securities laws, drug-labeling laws, and con- sumer-protection laws. See, e.g. , Wyeth , 555 U.S. at 581 (drug labeling); Cantor v. Detroit Edison Co. , 428 U.S. 579, 596 (1976) (antitrust); Da- vidson v. Sprout Foods, Inc. , 106 F.4th 842, 852 (9th Cir. 2024) (food la- beling); Green v. Fund Asset Mgt., L.P. , 245 F.3d 214, 227 (3d Cir. 2001) (securities); Spectrum Ne., LLC v. Frey , 22 F.4th 287, 301 (1st Cir. 2022) (consumer protection). A key takeaway of the federalism canon—espe- cially coupled with the major-questions doctrine—is that the States are expected to be the primary regulators of health and safety. So the con- stitutional default is that companies like Crypto and Kalshi will have to navigate both state and federal law. Allowing the States freedom to make their own choices is a particu- larly good thing here since “Americans have never been of one mind about gambling.” Murphy , 584 U.S. at 458. The States are therefore “free to act” in this area until Congress clearly removes their historic authority. Id. at 486. Congress has not done so, and the CFTC has no special license to declare otherwise.
31
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs