Case: 25-1922 Document: 73 Page: 30 Date Filed: 08/14/2025
beyond what the [Act] would authorize.” Appellee Br. 32. The Sports Wa- gering Act imposes criminal penalties, including a fine up to $100,000, for offering an unauthorized “sports pool.” N.J. Stat. Ann. § 5:12A-11(c). But federal law imposes an even greater penalty of up to $1,000,000 for “willfully” violating the Act or “any rule or regulation thereunder.” 7 U.S.C. § 13(a)(5). So this is not a situation where state law criminalizes conduct for which “Congress decided it would be inappropriate to impose criminal penalties.” Arizona v. United States , 567 U.S. 387, 406 (2012). Kalshi’s last-ditch resort to impossibility preemption fails too. The company belatedly contends (at 33) that “compliance with both the CFTC’s and New Jersey’s requirements would be impossible.” Although Kalshi never raised this theory below, it fails anyway because it is not impossible “to comply with both state and federal requirements.” Farina , 625 F.3d at 122. Indeed, “[i]t is Kalshi’s desire not to comply with [New Jersey] law and presumably incur some additional compliance costs—not the existence of [New Jersey] consumer protection laws themselves—that creates the situation Kalshi professes to worry about.” Martin , 2025 WL 2194908, at *13. That largely disposes of Kalshi’s impossibility arguments. For ex- ample, there is no need to offer “sports-event contracts everywhere except New Jersey.” Appellee Br. 33, 60. “So long as Kalshi obtains a license and complies with [New Jersey] sports gambling laws, those laws would not
24
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs