Case 2:26-cv-00151 Document 1 Filed 02/23/26 PageID.9 Page 9 of 27
21. Accordingly, Defendants’ anticipated actions threaten impending and irreparable
harm, not just to Kalshi, but to its customers and commercial counterparties. Shutting down Kalshi’s ability to offer event contracts in Utah would threaten Kalshi’s viability and require devising complex technological solutions whose feasibility is entirely untested and unclear. It would also impair Kalshi’s existing contracts with consumers and business partners, subject Kalshi’s users to uncertainty and loss, undermine confidence in the integrity of Kalshi’s platform, threaten its prospective business relationships, and jeopardize Kalshi’s status as a CFTC-approved exchange. For that reason, Kalshi intends to imminently seek an emergency temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction to avoid the immediate and irreparable harm that would result from Defendants’ unlawful acts.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
22. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because
the action arises under the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution. The federal question presented is whether Utah law is preempted by the CEA, 7 U.S.C. §§ 1 et seq. , as applied to Kalshi’s event contracts. 23. The Eleventh Amendment imposes no bar to this Court’s jurisdiction in this suit for prospective declaratory and injunctive relief against state officials. Under the Eleventh Amendment, as construed in Ex parte Young , 209 U.S. 123, 159-160 (1908), “a private party may sue a state officer for prospective injunctive or declaratory relief from an ongoing violation of the Constitution or federal laws.” MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. Pub. Serv. Comm’n of Utah , 216 F.3d 929, 935 (10th Cir. 2000). 24. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b)(1) and 1391(b)(2). Defendants perform their duties in and thus reside in this District. A substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred in this District.
9
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs