Case 2:25-cv-00575-APG-BNW Document 237 Filed 11/24/25 Page 2 of 29
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
and its members in their official capacities, and the Nevada Attorney General (collectively, the Board) seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. Kalshi asserted that the CFTC has exclusive jurisdiction over the contracts traded on Kalshi’s exchange, so the Board cannot enforce Nevada state law against Kalshi. Kalshi moved for a preliminary injunction to preclude the Board from pursuing Kalshi for civil or criminal penalties under Nevada law based on Kalshi offering sports-related event contracts on its exchange. I granted that motion, concluding that the CFTC had exclusive jurisdiction over contracts listed on a DCM, so Nevada state gaming law was preempted. ECF No. 45. After my preliminary injunction ruling, the District of New Jersey granted Kalshi’s motion for an injunction in a similar suit. KalshiEX LLC v. Flaherty , No. 25-cv-02152-ESK- MJS, 2025 WL 1218313, at *4-7 (D.N.J. Apr. 28, 2025). The New Jersey state regulatory authorities appealed, and the Third Circuit heard oral arguments on September 10, 2025. Third Cir. Case No. 25-1922. The Third Circuit has yet to issue a decision. Meanwhile, the United States District Court for the District of Maryland denied Kalshi an injunction in similar litigation in that court, ruling that Maryland state gaming authorities were not preempted from regulating Kalshi’s sports-related event contracts. KalshiEX LLC v. Martin , No. 25-cv-1283-ABA, 2025 WL 2194908, at *1, 5-13 (D. Md. Aug. 1, 2025). Kalshi appealed to the Fourth Circuit, where briefing is ongoing. Fourth Cir. Case No. 25-1892. Then in October 2025, I denied an injunction in a similar case, North American Derivatives Exchange, Inc., d/b/a Crypto.com v. Nevada Gaming Control Board (the Crypto case). In Crypto , I ruled that event contracts that turn on the outcomes of sporting events are not
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
2
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs