Case: 25-1922 Document: 73 Page: 31 Date Filed: 08/14/2025
pose an obstacle to Kalshi making the sports gambling portion of its plat- form available to users in” New Jersey. 10 Martin , 2025 WL 2194908, at *13. Nor is it impossible to comply with state “cash reserve require- ments.” Appellee Br. 60. Kalshi calls these requirements “superfluous” because it must already “comply with CFTC capital requirements” and “use a clearinghouse that collateralizes open positions.” Id. So it is obvi- ously possible to comply with requirements that are supposedly redun- dant. And to the extent Kalshi is not the “counterparty to any trade,” id. , New Jersey law does not require it to “cover” the “outstanding sports pool wagers,” see N.J. Admin. Code § 13:69N-1.2(d). Finally, it is not “impossible” for Kalshi to comply with the “impar- tial access” requirement just because New Jerseyans cannot place bets on certain college sports events. Appellee Br. 33–34. At the outset, the “impartial access” requirement “does not compel the existence of a mar- ket” for particular event contracts; Congress simply wanted the CFTC to regulate market access “to the extent a market exists.” Just Puppies , 123 F.4th at 664. That New Jersey removed one type of sports-related event contract from the in-state options in no way conflicts with the Act’s access requirements to the markets generally. In any event, the CFTC imple- mented this requirement to “prevent DCMs from using discriminatory
10 New Jersey does not impose any “obligation to accept trades only within New Jersey.” Appellee Br. 60. Its sports-gambling laws are limited to its borders and have no effect on Kalshi’s conduct nationwide.
25
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs