Case: 25-7516, 01/23/2026, DktEntry: 33.1, Page 32 of 110
The district court determined that “the balance of hardships tips in
favor of the Board, and the public interest favors dissolving the injunction.”
1-ER-6. Kalshi’s claimed harms “are largely monetary” (“essentially that it
will not be able to profit from [its] trades”), and Kalshi “created or amplified”
those harms by “greatly expand[ing]” its business instead of “proceed[ing]
cautiously until this and other lawsuits played out.” 1-ER-26-27.
State Defendants, in contrast, face “substantial” and “irreparable”
harms that “weigh heavily” against Kalshi’s asserted harms. 1-ER-27-29.
Regulated gaming is vital to Nevada’s economy and public welfare. 1-ER-
27. Kalshi’s continued operation deprives Nevada of needed revenue, gives
Kalshi an unfair advantage over its licensed competitors, and harms the
public by conducting gaming without Nevada’s “rigorous” regulations. 1-
ER-27-28.
SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT The district court did not abuse its discretion in dissolving Kalshi’s
preliminary injunction.
I. To prevail on the merits, Kalshi must show both that its contracts
are swaps (or other commodity derivatives) under the CEA, and that the
CEA preempts all state gaming law as to those contracts. It cannot show a
likelihood of success on either.
A. Kalshi’s contracts are not “swaps” or other commodity derivatives,
so its claim of preemption fails at the outset.
14
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs