Case: 25-1922 Document: 73 Page: 2
Date Filed: 08/14/2025
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page(s)
INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................... 1 ARGUMENT ............................................................................................... 2 I. Kalshi’s event contracts do not fall within the Act..........................2 II. The Act does not preempt New Jersey’s gambling laws. ................7 A. The text and structure of federal law foreclose all of Kalshi’s preemption theories. ......................... 8 B. New Jersey’s Sports Wagering Act is not barred by express, field, or conflict preemption. .............................. 15 1. All agree there is no express preemption. ...................16 2. There is no comprehensive federal scheme to imply field preemption. ............................................ 17 3. New Jersey law does not conflict with the Act. ...........21 CONCLUSION ......................................................................................... 26
ii
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs