that the Ex parte Young exception does not apply. (Doc. No. 34 at 17–21.) The plaintiff disagrees. (Doc. No. 41 at 6.) The court finds the defendants’ arguments unavailing, at least with respect to the state official defendants. The Eleventh Amendment bars suit in federal court against states, state agencies, and state officials sued in their official capacities. Block v. Canepa , 74 F.4th 400, 406 (6th Cir. 2023) (citations omitted). However, under the doctrine set forth in Ex parte Young , 209 U.S. 123 (1908), suits seeking prospective equitable relief against state officials in their official capacities are not barred by the Eleventh Amendment. Morgan v. Bd. of Pro. Resp. , 63 F.4th 510, 515 (6th Cir. 2023) (citing Mich. Bell Tel. Co. v. Climax Tel. Co. , 202 F.3d 862, 867 (6th Cir. 2000)). The Ex parte Young exception is narrow; it “applies only when a plaintiff seeks . . . prospective equitable relief to stop a continuing violation of federal law.” Josephson v. Ganzel , 115 F.4th 771, 782 (6th Cir. 2024) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). While usually a statute must be enforced for a plaintiff to have standing, the Supreme Court has permitted “pre-enforcement review under circumstances that render the threatened enforcement sufficiently imminent.” Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus , 573 U.S. 149, 159 (2014). Moreover, parties “may use Ex parte Young as a shield against the enforcement” of state laws that are contrary to federal law and thus preempted. Mich. Corr. Org. v. Mich. Dep’t of Corr. , 774 F.3d 895, 906 (6th Cir. 2014) (citations omitted). 14 Kalshi seeks to prevent state officials from enforcing a state law that they have credibly threatened to enforce and that, Kalshi argues, is preempted by federal law. Accordingly, the court has
14 By contrast, the “ Ex parte Young exception ‘does not apply when a defendant state official has neither enforced nor threatened to enforce the allegedly unconstitutional state statute.’” Block , 74 F.4th at 406 (quoting Russell v. Lundergan-Grimes , 784 F.3d 1037, 1047 (6th Cir. 2015)).
12
Case 3:26-cv-00034 Document 48 Filed 02/19/26 Page 12 of 25 PageID #: 880
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs