Case 1:25-cv-02152-ESK-MJS Document 15 Filed 04/18/25 Page 50 of 51 PageID: 171
An injunction would also be an invitation for other companies to evade New Jersey’s—or any State’s—sports-wagering laws by structuring their wagers as event contracts and self-certifying them with the CFTC. Such a result would severely erode States’ historic police powers to regulate gambling within their borders and diminish their ability to collect fees and taxes from sports wagers. Against these significant societal interests, Kalshi claims that “[t]he public has a first-order interest in ensuring that preempted New Jersey laws are not en- forced against federally-regulated entities.” PI Br. 23. But as explained supra Sec- tion I, the CEA does not preempt New Jersey’s laws concerning sports wager- ing. And the alleged harms that Kalshi claims its users will suffer if it ceases operations in New Jersey, PI Br. 25, also do not tip the balance in favor of an injunction. Any such harm is avoidable, as Kalshi can continue to accept sports wagers in New Jersey so long as it complies with New Jersey’s laws. See supra at 4–6. The balance of equities weighs sharply against an injunction.
CONCLUSION Kalshi’s preliminary-injunction motion should be denied.
Respectfully Submitted,
MATTHEW J. PLATKIN ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NEW JERSEY
By: /s/__ Liza B. Fleming ________________ Liza B. Fleming
Dated: April 18, 2025
Deputy Attorney General
40
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs