Case: 25-7516, 01/23/2026, DktEntry: 33.1, Page 21 of 110
STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE Whether the district court abused its discretion in dissolving the pre-
liminary injunction, when (1) Kalshi is unlikely to succeed in showing that
the Commodity Exchange Act, 7 U.S.C. § 1 et seq. , preempts Nevada gaming
law with respect to Kalshi’s election and sports contracts, and (2) the bal-
ance of equities tips heavily against Kalshi.
STATUTORY AND REGULATORY AUTHORITIES Pertinent statutes and rules are set out in the addendum to this brief.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
A. Legal Background 1.
Nevada Comprehensively Regulates Gaming Nevada is the “gaming capital of the world.” Becky Harris & Husna
Alikhan, Nevada, Over 60 Years Regulating Gambling—A Jurisdictional
Overview , 23 Gaming L. Rev. 645, 647 (2019) (Harris & Alikhan). Millions
of people visit Nevada each year to gamble at its hundreds of casinos; for
many, “gambling” and “Nevada” are “synonymous.” Id. at 645.
The “public policy” of Nevada, expressed through the Legislature, is
that the “[t]he gaming industry is vitally important to the economy of the
State and the general welfare of the inhabitants.” NRS § 463.0129(1)(a).
The “continued growth and success” of the industry “is dependent upon pub-
lic confidence and trust” that gaming is “conducted honestly and competi-
tively” and “free from criminal and corruptive elements.”
Id.
3
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs