Case: 25-7516, 01/23/2026, DktEntry: 33.1, Page 75 of 110
Kalshi also briefly asserts (Br. 37-38) that limiting its Nevada opera-
tions would violate other CFTC core principles by causing “market disrup-
tions” or increasing the risk of “manipulation,” but fails to substantiate
those assertions. Further, Kalshi is only in this position because it chose to
operate in Nevada despite the legal risks, apparently without any plan for
stopping its operations. 1-ER-26-27. Kalshi cannot manufacture preemp-
tion by violating state law and then claiming it would be impossible to stop.
b. Enforcing Nevada gaming law does not pose an obstacle to the CEA’s objectives Obstacle preemption applies when enforcing state law “stands as an
obstacle” to Congress’s objectives. Am. Apparel , 107 F.4th at 943. It like-
wise does not apply here. There is no evidence of a congressional purpose
to allow sports gambling on DCMs. See pp. 48-53, supra . And even if Con-
gress intended to allow sports betting on DCMs, Kalshi could obtain a Ne-
vada license (as other sportsbooks have) and then continue to offer its wa-
gers.
Kalshi argues (Br. 36-37) that requiring it to comply with Nevada
gaming law would frustrate the CEA’s supposed goal of “uniform” regula-
tion of derivatives markets. But uniformity is a field-preemption argument,
QS9R; Sean Treppedi, FanDuel Launching Prediction Markets App to Tar- get Non-Sports Betting States , N.Y. Post (Nov. 13, 2025), perma.cc/T9MM- F7RG; Daniel O’Boyle, DraftKings Enters Prediction Markets With Quite A Few Questions Unanswered , InGame (Dec. 22, 2025), perma.cc/FYE2-PKE2.
57
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs