Case 2:25-cv-00575-APG-BNW Document 45 Filed 04/09/25 Page 3 of 17
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
to the CFTC’s exclusive jurisdiction, so Nevada law is preempted, and Nevada regulatory authorities cannot subject Kalshi to different standards than those imposed by the CFTC. Kalshi contends that its operation is legal under federal law because (1) earlier this year, the CFTC permitted Kalshi to offer sports event contracts and (2) last year, a federal district court authorized Kalshi’s political event contracts. Kalshi contends that it needs immediate injunctive relief because the defendants are threatening civil and criminal liability if Kalshi does not stop offering these contracts in Nevada, but Kalshi cannot do so without incurring substantial economic and reputational harm and imposing harm on the users who have invested in these contracts. Kalshi asked the Board to defer action on civil and criminal liability until a court could resolve Kalshi’s anticipated motion for injunctive relief. The Board declined, and its counsel indicated that the Board might initiate proceedings against Kalshi as early as April 2, 2025. The defendants move to enjoin Kalshi from offering its sports and election contracts in Nevada. To qualify for a preliminary injunction, a party must demonstrate: (1) a likelihood of success on the merits, (2) a likelihood of irreparable harm, (3) the balance of hardships favors the movant, and (4) an injunction is in the public interest. Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc. , 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). As discussed below and at the hearing, Kalshi has met its burden of showing these factors, so I grant its motion and enjoin the defendants from pursuing civil or criminal prosecutions of Kalshi for event contracts Kalshi offers on its CFTC-designated exchange.
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
/ / / / / / / / / / / /
3
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs