Case 1:25-cv-02152-ESK-MJS Document 15 Filed 04/18/25 Page 12 of 51 PageID: 133
legislation,” Kansas v. Garcia , 589 U.S. 191, 208 (2020), the CEA expressly par- allels and incorporates state law. Unsurprisingly, then, New Jersey law furthers (rather than impedes) the CEA: both laws operate to “ensure the financial integ- rity of all transactions” and “to protect all market participants from fraudulent or other abusive sales practices and misuses of customer assets.” 7 U.S.C. § 5(b). Merits aside, Kalshi cannot prevail on the other preliminary-injunction factors. While Kalshi bemoans its inability to accept sports wagers in New Jersey if a preliminary injunction is denied, this harm is entirely avoidable: Kalshi can accept nearly all sports wagers in New Jersey if it simply obtains a license and complies with the Sports Wagering Act. And for the small subset of wagers that are prohibited under state law—college sporting events involving New Jersey colleges or taking place in New Jersey—Kalshi’s alleged harm is both entirely speculative and purely monetary. So Kalshi will suffer no irreparable harm. But if Kalshi obtains injunctive relief, the public will suffer because New Jersey will be unable to both enforce its duly enacted sports-wagering laws that are meant to protect its residents and collect fees and taxes on these sports wagers, which are used to fund programs to treat gambling addiction and to provide services for senior citizens and New Jersey residents with disabilities. This Court should reject Kalshi’s invitation for any company to evade state sports-wagering laws by structuring their wagers as event contracts and self- certifying them with the CFTC. That result would severely erode States’ longstanding police powers to regulate gambling within their borders.
2
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs