Case: 25-7516, 01/23/2026, DktEntry: 33.1, Page 3 of 110
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................ 1 JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT ................................................................2 STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE ......................................................................3 STATUTORY AND REGULATORY AUTHORITIES ..................................3 STATEMENT OF THE CASE ........................................................................3 A. Legal Background .............................................................................3 1. Nevada Comprehensively Regulates Gaming .........................3 2. The CFTC Regulates Commodity Futures Trading ................6 B. Factual Background .........................................................................9 C. Procedural History .......................................................................... 12 SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT..............................................................14 STANDARD OF REVIEW ............................................................................18 ARGUMENT .................................................................................................. 19 I. KALSHI IS NOT LIKELY TO SUCCEED ON THE MERITS.............19 A. Kalshi’s Sports and Election Contracts Are Not “Swaps,” “Option[s],” or “Contracts of Sale of a Commodity for Future Delivery” Under the CEA ...............................................................22 1. The CFTC Does Not Have “Exclusive Jurisdiction” Over Any Contract Traded on a DCM.............................................22 2. Kalshi’s Contracts Are Not “Swaps”.......................................23 a. Kalshi’s interpretation is contrary to the statutory text ....................................................................................24 b. Kalshi’s interpretation of “swaps” makes no sense in context ..........................................................................30 c. Kalshi’s interpretation is inconsistent with Congress’s purposes and the CFTC’s guidance..............33 3. Kalshi’s Contracts Are Not “Option[s]” or “Contracts of Sale of a Commodity for Future Delivery”.............................35
i
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs