Case 1:25-cv-14723 Document 1 Filed 08/19/25 Page 24 of 28 PageID: 24
59. Nor could Robinhood have avoided irreparable harm by continuing voluntarily to comply with the Division’s cease-and-desist demand. Had it continued to comply, Robinhood would have been forced to continue to forgo significant business in New Jersey, resulting in loss of revenue. These economic losses would be unrecoverable because sovereign immunity bars Robinhood from obtaining monetary damages for the Division’s impact on Robinhood’s business. See Alden v. Maine , 527 U.S. 706, 712-13 (1999). Damages that are unrecoverable due to sovereign immunity constitute irreparable harm. See, e.g. , Temple Univ. v. White , 941 F.2d 201, 215 (3d Cir. 1991) (“As to the inadequacy of legal remedies, the Eleventh Amendment bar to an award of retroactive damages against the Commonwealth clearly establishes that any legal remedy is unavailable and that the only relief available is equitable in nature.” (internal citation omitted)); Cigar Ass’n of Am. v. City of Phila. , 500 F. Supp. 3d 428, 436-37 (E.D. Pa. 2020) (holding that plaintiff established irreparable harm when “money damages against the City would not be available on Plaintiffs’ preemption claims”). 60. Continuing to prevent New Jersey residents from opening new sports- related event contract positions would also have undermined customers’ confidence in Robinhood and their reliance on its financial services, causing irreparable harm. KalshiEx , 2025 WL 1218313, at *7; see also GlaxoSmithKline LLC , 484 F. Supp. 3d at 226-28. 61. Given the Division’s demand that Robinhood comply with preempted state law, Robinhood had and has no way to avoid irreparable harm in the absence of a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. 62. There is an imminent likelihood that Defendants will violate the Supremacy Clause. To prevent irreparable harm, Robinhood seeks declaratory and injunctive
24
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs