Case: 25-7516, 01/23/2026, DktEntry: 33.1, Page 73 of 110
The IGRA and Wire Act confirm both that Congress knows how to
regulate gambling, and that it generally has deferred to state judgments in
doing so.
2. Conflict Preemption Does Not Apply Neither form of conflict preemption (impossibility or obstacle) applies. It is not impossible for Kalshi to comply with Nevada law and the CEA Impossibility preemption applies when it would be “impossible to com- a.
ply with both federal and state law.” Am. Apparel & Footwear Ass’n v. Ba-
den , 107 F.4th 934, 943 (9th Cir. 2024). That is not true here. Kalshi could
become licensed and comply with Nevada law, as other online betting com-
panies have; it just refuses to do so. See Martin , 793 F. Supp. 3d at 686.
Although Nevada law has some differences from the CEA—for example, Ne-
vada bans gaming under age 21, and Kalshi allows 18-year-olds to gamble,
1-ER-28—state law can be more protective than federal law; that does not
show a conflict. See Wyeth v. Levine , 555 U.S. 555, 573 (2009).
Kalshi identifies (Br. 37-38) only one Nevada regulation that it says it
cannot follow—a requirement that sports bettors be located in Nevada or
other States where sports betting is legal. See Nev. Gaming Reg. 22.140(1).
Even if accepted, that only would excuse compliance with that regulation,
not all Nevada gaming law. Pac. Gas & Elec. Co. v. State Energy Res. Con-
servation & Dev. Comm’n , 461 U.S. 190, 204 (1983) (preemption operates
55
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs