Case 2:25-cv-01541-JCM-DJA Document 1 Filed 08/19/25 Page 22 of 26
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
CFTC jurisdiction. See id. § 1a(28)(A) (CEA expressly envisions FCMs facilitating transactions in swaps and commodities for future delivery). 66. In short, the “oversight of futures commission merchants (‘FCMs’)” is an “important aspect” of the CFTC’s oversight responsibility for futures trading. Prestwick Capital Mgmt., Ltd. v. Peregrine Fin. Grp., Inc. , 727 F.3d 646, 650 (7th Cir. 2013). FCMs like Robinhood are therefore an integral part of the fabric of the CEA’s comprehensive regulatory scheme, and their activities in facilitating trading on DCMs are equally subject to federal preemption as those of DCMs like Kalshi. G. Robinhood Has Suffered Irreparable Harm and Will Continue To Suffer Irreparable Harm Without Injunctive Relief. 67. Robinhood is suffering irreparable harm as a result of the Board’s refusal to acknowledge that the Court’s KalshiEx Order is equally applicable to Robinhood’s facilitation of sports-related event contracts offered through the Kalshi exchange. Because Robinhood has granted access to sports-related event contract trading for its Nevada customers, Robinhood faces the imminent threat of potential civil liability and criminal prosecution. The sanctions for violation of Nev. Rev. Stat. § 463.160 include civil and criminal penalties, including a fine “of not more than $50,000” and “imprisonment . . . for a minimum term of not less than 1 year and a maximum term of not more than 10 years.” Nev. Rev. Stat. § 463.360(3). The threat of prosecution, articulated in the Board’s letter, is actual and imminent. A credible threat of prosecution under a preempted state statute causes irreparable harm. See Morales , 504 U.S. at 381. 68. Further, the harm to Robinhood’s reputation caused by the threat, the uncertainty surrounding the status of sports-related event contract trading in Nevada, and potential enforcement proceedings by the Board is also irreparable, because it cannot be easily or quickly repaired. KalshiEx , 2025 WL 1073495, at *7-8; see also Life Alert Emergency Response, Inc. v. LifeWatch, Inc. , 601 F. App’x 469, 474 (9th Cir. 2015). Robinhood also stands to lose the goodwill of its customers, including its over 12,000 customers in Nevada. This
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
22
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs