Case: 25-7516, 01/23/2026, DktEntry: 33.1, Page 20 of 110
not secretly preempt all state gaming regulation in a law about commodity-
futures trading.
Apart from the merits, a preliminary injunction is not warranted be-
cause the balance of equities tips strongly against Kalshi. Kalshi wants to
keep profiting from unlicensed sports betting. But its harms are self-in-
flicted; the district court and the CFTC warned Kalshi of the risks of ex-
panding its business, and Kalshi did it anyway. Kalshi’s claimed harms
also are unsubstantiated, as the district court thoroughly explained.
On the other hand, Kalshi’s continued operation poses an existential
threat to Nevada’s gaming industry, which is at the core of Nevada’s econ-
omy. Kalshi’s refusal to follow the same rules as its competitors threatens
the integrity of that industry and deprives the State of critical revenue.
Kalshi’s operation also harms the public by offering gambling without Ne-
vada’s restrictions on gambling by minors, problem gambling, insider bet-
ting, and criminal conduct. Every day Kalshi operates causes irreparable
harm to Nevada, its gaming industry, and the public.
Kalshi cites no decision where a court enjoined a State from enforcing
a presumptively valid law to allow a private business to continue profiting
from violating that law. This Court should not be the first.
JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT The jurisdictional statement in Kalshi’s brief is correct.
2
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs