Case 1:25-cv-02152-ESK-MJS Document 15 Filed 04/18/25 Page 2 of 51 PageID: 123
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page PRELIMINARY STATEMENT.................................................................. 1 COUNTERSTATEMENT OF FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY...3 A. New Jersey’s Historical Regulation of Gambling.............................. 3 B. The Commodity Exchange Act........................................................ 6 C. Kalshi’s Business And This Case. .................................................... 8 STANDARD OF REVIEW ........................................................................ 11 ARGUMENT............................................................................................. 12 I. Kalshi will not succeed on the merits because the CEA does not preempt the New Jersey Sports Wagering Act................................................ 12 A. The presumption against preemption applies to the New Jersey Sports Wagering Act. .................................................................... 12 B. Congress did not field preempt state sports-wagering laws that regulate event contracts. ................................................................ 14 1. The CEA’s plain text shows that Congress did not displace state sports-wagering laws that regulate event contracts. ............ 14 2. Nothing in the case law or legislative history of the CEA indicates that Congress meant to field preempt state sports- wagering laws regulating event contracts. .................................. 23 C. Regulation of these event contracts under New Jersey’s Sports Wagering Act is not an obstacle to the purposes of the CEA........... 26 1. The New Jersey Sports Wagering Act furthers rather than impedes the CEA...................................................................... 27 2. Kalshi does not identify any obstacle to the purposes and objectives of the CEA. .............................................................. 30 II. The equities confirm that Kalshi is not entitled to the relief it seeks. ..... 34 A. Kalshi has not established irreparable harm.................................... 34 B. The public interest weighs against injunctive relief. ........................ 38 CONCLUSION .......................................................................................... 40
i
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs