Case: 25-7516, 01/23/2026, DktEntry: 33.1, Page 4 of 110
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
Page
4. Kalshi’s Position Would Require All Sports Betting to Be Regulated Only by the CFTC ............................................37 5. This Court Can Decide the Threshold Issue of Whether the CEA Applies ......................................................................41 B. The CEA Does Not Preempt State Gaming Law ..........................44 1. Field Preemption Does Not Apply ..........................................45 a. The CEA’s text does not show a clear intent to preempt state gaming law ...............................................45 b. The CEA contains no comprehensive regulatory scheme for gaming ...........................................................48 c. There is no evidence that Congress intended to federalize all sports betting .............................................52 d. Kalshi’s view would require impliedly repealing other important federal laws...........................................53 2. Conflict Preemption Does Not Apply .....................................55 a. It is not impossible for Kalshi to comply with Nevada law and the CEA ................................................55 b. Enforcing Nevada gaming law does not pose an obstacle to the CEA’s objectives ......................................57 II. THE BALANCE OF HARDSHIPS WEIGHS HEAVILY AGAINST KALSHI .................................................................................58 A. Kalshi Identifies No Irreparable Harm.........................................59 B. The Balance of Equities and Public Interest Favor State Defendants ......................................................................................63 CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................68 ADDENDUM—STATUTORY AND REGULATORY AUTHORITIES......1a
ii
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs