Case: 2:25-cv-01165-SDM-CMV Doc #: 69 Filed: 03/09/26 Page: 7 of 21 PAGEID #: 900
injunction) ( Hendrick I ), order dissolved , 2025 WL 3286282, --- F. Supp. 3d --- (D.
Nev. 2025) (dissolving the earlier order granting Kalshi’s motion for preliminary
injunction) ( Hendrick II ), stay denied , No. 25-7516 (9th Cir. Feb. 17, 2026);
KalshiEX LLC v. Orgel , No. 3:25-cv-00034, 2026 WL 474869 (M.D. Tenn. Feb. 19,
2026) (granting Kalshi’s motion for preliminary injunction). Having studied the
parties’ filings and the growing body of relevant case law, the Court concludes that
the instant motion presents questions of law, not fact. 1 As such, no hearing is
necessary to issue a ruling. See Certified Restoration Dry Cleaning Network, L.L.C.
v. Tenke Corp. , 511 F.3d 535, 552–53 (6th Cir. 2007). For the reasons below, Kalshi
fails to make a clear showing that it is entitled to the extraordinary preliminary
injunctive relief it seeks.
A.
Likelihood of Success on the Merits
The merits of this case center on the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause. U.S.
C ONST . art. VI, cl. 2. The Supremacy Clause “specifies that federal law is supreme
in case of a conflict with state law.” Murphy , 584 U.S. at 477. Said another way,
when state and federal laws are “in conflict or at cross-purposes,” “federal law wins
out.” Churchill Downs Tech. Initiatives Co. v. Michigan Gaming Control Bd. , 162
F.4th 631, 637 (6th Cir. 2025) (quoting Arizona v. United States , 567 U.S. 387, 399
(2012)).
1 The parties represented to the Court at the Rule 65.1 Informal Conference that neither “discovery” nor “fact-finding” was necessary on the preliminary injunction. (ECF No. 30, PAGEID # 354–55.) They later declined the Court’s invitation to convert the motion for preliminary injunction to a motion for judgment on the merits. ( See id ., PAGEID # 367–68.)
7
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs