Case: 2:25-cv-01165-SDM-CMV Doc #: 69 Filed: 03/09/26 Page: 2 of 21 PAGEID #: 895
No. 49). The Indian Gaming Association, National Congress of American Indians,
Washington Indian Gaming Association, Arizona Indian Gaming Association,
California Nations Indian Gaming Association, Oklahoma Indian Gaming
Association, Minnesota Indian Gaming Association, United South and Eastern
Tribes Sovereignty Protection Fund, San Manuel Gaming and Hospitality
Authority, and twenty-two federally recognized Indian Tribes filed an Amicus Brief
in support of Ohio’s response to the Motion. (Amicus Br., ECF No. 55.) The parties
have also made the Court aware of relevant authority issued since the Motion was
filed. (ECF Nos. 57, 61, 64, 66, 68.)
For the reasons below, Kalshi’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction is
DENIED.
I.
BACKGROUND
There is no dispute about the facts giving rise to this case. The Commodity
Exchange Act (“CEA”), 7 U.S.C. § 1 et seq. , is “a comprehensive regulatory structure
to oversee the volatile and esoteric futures trading complex.” Merrill Lynch, Pierce,
Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. Curran , 456 U.S. 353, 356 (1982) (quotation omitted).
Subject to limited exceptions, the CEA gives the Commodity Futures Trading
Commission (“CFTC”) “exclusive jurisdiction” over “accounts, agreements . . . , and
transactions involving swaps or contracts of sale of a commodity for future
delivery . . . , traded or executed on” boards of trade or designated contract markets.
7 U.S.C. § 2(a)(1)(A). “Swaps” were only added to the CFTC’s portfolio in 2010, by
way of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act developed
2
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs