Case: 25-7516, 01/23/2026, DktEntry: 33.1, Page 36 of 110
minuscule in comparison to Kalshi’s revenues. Kalshi cites possible crimi-
nal enforcement, but State Defendants simply seek to bring a state civil suit
to stop Kalshi’s unlawful activities. Kalshi cannot complain when it already
is subject to such a suit in another State, and it could raise any defense in
state court.
B. In contrast, State Defendants’ harms are severe and irreparable.
Nevada has a sovereign interest in enforcing its gaming laws. Kalshi’s con-
tinued operation severely disrupts Nevada’s regulated gaming industry by
giving it an unfair advantage over licensed competitors. It harms Nevada’s
economy and public fisc by depriving the State of critical tax revenues. And
it harms the public, because Kalshi does not comply with Nevada’s con-
sumer-protection requirements, and its platform is open to manipulation
and abuse. Every day Kalshi operates in violation of Nevada law imposes
“substantial irreparable harms to the Board, the State of Nevada, the gam-
ing industry in this state, and the public interest.” 1-ER-27.
This Court should affirm.
STANDARD OF REVIEW A preliminary injunction is a form of extraordinary relief. To obtain
that relief, Kalshi must satisfy the four factors in Winter v. NRDC, Inc. , 555
U.S. 7 (2008): (1) it is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) it likely will suffer
irreparable harm without a preliminary injunction; (3) the balance of equi-
ties favors it; and (4) an injunction is in the public interest. Karnoski v.
18
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs