Case: 25-7516, 01/23/2026, DktEntry: 33.1, Page 31 of 110
that warning (and the similar warning from the CFTC, 1-StateSER-41),
Kalshi “greatly expanded its offerings,” 1-ER-27.
Kalshi’s competitor Crypto.com then filed a similar lawsuit, see 1-ER-
3, as did Kalshi’s partner Robinhood, see 1-ER-4. Both sought preliminary
injunctions. The district court denied those requests. See N. Am. Deriva-
tives Exch., Inc. v. Nevada ( Crypto.com ), 2025 WL 2916151, at *6-11 (D. Nev.
Oct. 14, 2025), appeal docketed , No. 25-7187 (9th Cir. Nov. 14, 2025); Robin-
hood Derivatives, LLC v. Dreitzer , 2025 WL 3283308, at *1-2 (D. Nev. Nov.
25, 2025), appeal docketed , No. 25-7831 (9th Cir. Dec. 12, 2025).
In Crypto.com’s case, the court held that the CEA does not preempt
state gaming laws because sports bets are not “swaps” or other derivatives
subject to the CFTC’s jurisdiction, and the preemption argument therefore
fails at that threshold step. 2025 WL 2916151, at *6-11. State Defendants
then moved to dissolve Kalshi’s preliminary injunction. 1-ER-4.
The district court dissolved Kalshi’s preliminary injunction. 1-ER-2-
30. It held that Kalshi has no likelihood of success on the merits because
its contracts are not “swaps” (or options or futures) under the CEA. 1-ER-
12. It noted that Kalshi’s expansive definitions of those terms “has no lim-
iting principle” and would lead to “absurd” results. 1-ER-20. The court also
explained that Kalshi’s position would “require all sports betting across the
country to come within the jurisdiction of the CFTC rather than the states
and Indian tribes,” which would “upset[] decades of federalism.” 1-ER-2.
13
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs