Case: 25-7516, 01/23/2026, DktEntry: 33.1, Page 80 of 110
Kalshi flatly refused every option State Defendants suggested to avoid en-
forcement, instead demanding that it be allowed to continue its operations,
unrestricted.
Kalshi repeatedly raises (Br. 38, 45, 63-64) the possibility of criminal
enforcement. But at this point, State Defendants simply seek to stop
Kalshi’s unlawful operations by filing a state civil suit seeking a declaration
and injunction. That is the procedure specified in state law, NRS § 463.343,
and it is the exact process Nevada just began to stop the illegal operations
of Polymarket, a Kalshi competitor, see Compl., Nevada v. Blockratize, Inc. ,
No. 260C 000121B (Nev. 1st Jud. Dist. filed Jan. 16, 2026).
Notably, Kalshi recently told the district court that it will not stop
operating in Nevada—no matter what this Court says—until State Defend-
ants bring a state-court enforcement action. 1-StateSER-5. State Defend-
ants can hardly be faulted for taking the necessary steps under state law to
stop Kalshi’s unlawful operations.
Kalshi cites (Br. 63-64) Valle del Sol Inc. v. Whiting , 732 F.3d 1006
(9th Cir. 2013), but there, the Court found a likelihood of irreparable harm
from “the threat of state prosecution for crimes that conflict with federal
law.” Id. at 1029 (internal quotation marks omitted). Here, Kalshi is not
likely to succeed in showing that Nevada gaming law is preempted. 1-ER-
25. Besides, Kalshi has the burden to show that a prosecution is “immi-
nent.” D.T. v. Sumner Cnty. Schs. , 942 F.3d 324, 327 (6th Cir. 2019); see
62
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs