Case: 2:25-cv-01165-SDM-CMV Doc #: 69 Filed: 03/09/26 Page: 6 of 21 PAGEID #: 899
U.S. 339, 345–46 (2024)). “The purpose of a preliminary injunction, unlike a
permanent one, is to prevent any violation of the plaintiff’s rights before the district
court enters a final judgment.” Resurrection Sch. v. Hertel , 35 F.4th 524, 528 (6th
Cir. 2022), cert. denied , 143 S. Ct. 372 (2022) (further quotation omitted).
Courts examine four factors when deciding whether to issue a preliminary
injunction: (1) whether the plaintiff has established a strong likelihood of success on
the merits; (2) whether the plaintiff would suffer irreparable injury without a
preliminary injunction; (3) whether the injunction would cause substantial harm to
others; and (4) whether the public interest would be served by the requested
injunction. EOG Res. , 134 F.4th at 874 (citing Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc. ,
555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008)). While courts generally “balance” these four factors, a plaintiff
must prove all four to prevail. Id . at 885 (citing Winter , 555 U.S. at 20).
III.
ANALYSIS
This Court is not the first to hear a request from Kalshi to enjoin a state from
applying its gaming regulations to sports-event contracts listed on Kalshi’s
exchange. The question has been considered by at least four other federal district
courts and is pending before at least three courts of appeals. See KalshiEX LLC v.
Martin , 793 F. Supp. 3d 667 (D. Md. 2025) (denying Kalshi’s motion for preliminary
injunction), appeal docketed , No. 25-1892 (4th Cir. Aug. 6, 2025); KalshiEX LLC v.
Flaherty , No. 25-cv-02152-ESK-MJS, 2025 WL 1218313 (D.N.J. Apr. 28, 2025)
(granting Kalshi’s motion for preliminary injunction), appeal docketed , No. 25-1922
(3d Cir. May 15, 2025); KalshiEX, LLC v. Hendrick , No. 2:25-cv-00575-APG-BNW,
2025 WL 1073495 (D. Nev. Apr. 9, 2025) (granting Kalshi’s motion for preliminary
6
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs