2:25-cv-575-APG-BNW MOTION HEARING - ROUGH DRAFT - DO NOT CITE!!!
86 in the short-term because I believe they're preempted, and if I'm wrong, the defendants can prosecute Kalshi later for conduct that turns out to be illegal if the defendants are correct. There doesn't appear to be a rush to do it immediately right now. Finally, the public interest weighs in favor of a short-term injunction for the same reasons I talked about with the other factors. Congress designated the CFTC to have exclusive jurisdiction over Kalshi's conduct, and right now that's legal. Additionally, third-parties' contracts and investment expectations would be disrupted if Kalshi were forced to cease its existing contracts for Nevada-based users, and that may impact counterparties to those contracts who are neither in Nevada nor signed event contracts in Nevada. So I'm going to grant the motion for an injunction. The defendants are hereby enjoined from enforcing preempted State laws against Kalshi. Specifically, the defendants may not pursue civil or criminal prosecutions against Kalshi for offering event-based contracts on a CFTC-designated market. Injunction takes effect immediately. I will issue a written order just so we don't have any confusion like occurred in D.C. over the last month or two. The injunction goes into effect now. The written order will confirm what I've said here. I'm going to require Kalshi to post a bond in the amount of $10,000 by noon Pacific Time tomorrow. If there's a
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Judy K. Moore, RMR, CRR
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs