Case: 25-7516, 01/23/2026, DktEntry: 33.1, Page 79 of 110
would take adverse action against” it for complying with state law “while
the various lawsuits play out.” 1-ER-26-27. Indeed, the CFTC has recog-
nized that DCMs may need to restrict activity in particular States in light
of ongoing litigation. 1-StateSER-41. Further, Crypto.com and other com-
petitors have restricted operations in particular States, without the CFTC
revoking their DCM registrations. 1-ER-26.
State enforcement action. Kalshi asserts (Br. 63-64) that it would
be harmed if Nevada filed a state enforcement action against it. But a state
enforcement proceeding “typically does not constitute irreparable harm,” be-
cause Kalshi could raise any potential defense. John Doe Co. v. CFPB , 235
F. Supp. 3d 194, 203 (D.D.C. 2017). Notably, Kalshi already is subject to a
state-court enforcement action in Massachusetts, and at least nine other
States have threatened enforcement actions. See Mick Bransfield, Sum-
mary of Legal Actions Involving Sports Event Contracts (Jan. 21, 2026),
perma.cc/Y3CM-SGWS. The Massachusetts court has ruled against Kalshi
in the enforcement action—yet Kalshi’s business has not collapsed. See
Mass. PI Order.
Kalshi could avoid enforcement by reasonably limiting its operations
in Nevada pending appeal. That is what Crypto.com and Robinhood have
done, apparently without incurring any meaningful harm. 1-ER-26. But
61
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs