Case 1:25-cv-02152-ESK-MJS Document 15 Filed 04/18/25 Page 48 of 51 PageID: 169
v. Harris , 625 F.2d 1328, 1331 (7th Cir. 1980) (similar). Kalshi’s failure to suffer irreparable harm means that its motion should be denied. Reilly , 858 F.3d at 179. B. The public interest weighs against injunctive relief. Even if Kalshi could demonstrate both a likelihood of success on the mer- its and irreparable harm, a preliminary injunction would still not be warranted because this Court must consider whether all four preliminary injunction factors “balance in favor of granting the requested preliminary relief.” Amalgamated Transit Union Loc. 85 v. Port Auth. of Allegheny Cnty. , 39 F.4th 95, 103 (3d Cir. 2022). When “the Government is the opposing party,” the final two factors— “harm to the opposing party” and “the public interest”—merge. Nken , 556 U.S. at 435. Injunctive relief can be denied on that basis alone. See, e.g. , Wyeth , 555 U.S. at 23 (declining to address merits for preliminary injunction and holding that “even if plaintiffs have shown irreparable injury,” it “is outweighed by the public interest and the Navy’s interest in effective, realistic training of its sail- ors”); Def. Distributed v. U.S. Dep’t of State , 838 F.3d 451, 460 (5th Cir. 2016) (af- firming denial of preliminary injunction on last two factors alone). Those com- bined two factors weigh strongly against a preliminary injunction here. The extraordinary remedy Kalshi demands—to exempt itself entirely from New Jersey’s Sports Wagering Act—makes its burden particularly heavy: “Any time a State is enjoined by a court from effectuating statutes enacted by repre- sentatives of its people, it suffers a form of irreparable injury.” Del. State Sports- men’s Ass’n, Inc. , 108 F.4th at 206 (quoting Maryland v. King , 567 U.S. 1301, 1303 (2012) (Roberts, C.J., in chambers)); see also Abbott v. Perez , 585 U.S. 579, 603
38
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs